nanog mailing list archives
Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded
From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall () ehsco com>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:49:54 -0800
(1) 8.2.3 Doesn't accept the "(" in the SOA string to be on the next line after the IN SOA. Our script-generated zonefiles, about 45000 of them, all had this.Neither do the relevant RFC's, or any other DNS implementation. Pre-8.2.3 was simply _wrong_ to accept that syntax.Is there any particular harm from accepting this syntax.
No and Yes. No in that an argument could be made that the old parsing routine fell under the "be liberal in what you accept" rules. Yes in that the Master File Format is intended to provide an interchangable database table, so while BIND may have been liberal it was doing so at the expense of some interoperability measures. The real culprit in this story is the script-generator. It should have been cranking out standard-compliant zone files from day one. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Current thread:
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Sean Donelan (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Joshua Goodall (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Roeland Meyer (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] RE: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Sean Donelan (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)