forwarders

[Johnny Fribert Lauridsen]

I probably did not express myself quite right.  I am 100% for things being standardized, and RFCs and IETF.
The thought was that we are seeing more and more non-RFC features put into the actual DNS products out there - bind
and others and suddenly we are able to do lots of things with DNS that we could not before.  My hope is that the ietf
follows-up on this, so that these new (some very useful)  features gets 'standardized'.  Sorry if I upset anyone, not intended.
Multimaster DNS was just one example (some are actually changing the bind dns with microsoft dns when
they roll-out win2000)
Johnny 

At 16:24 31/03/2000 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
>% 
>% Wow, you seem really sure about this Joe.  Big 'NO', big 'AUTHORITY', etc.
>% Some implementations do actually support DNS Exceptions, so that this problem can be handled, selectively.
>% I actually tried one, hands-on and all.
>% May not be strictly RFC, but I think you will see that the market will demand more functionality in DNS than
>% currently is RFCed.  Does multimaster dns also spring to mind?  
>% I do not think that anyone should be too RFC-tight these days with Win2000 rolling out.  Things will happen in the
>% DNS arena, whether or not ietf follows (they probably will, because the market-place needs them to - If they do not,
>% well, I hate thinking that thought to the end).
>% my 2 cents,
>% Johnny
>
>
>Johnny,
>         while cisco did eclipse microsoft as the largest company in the
>world, they have not yet adopted the "embrace, extend, exterminate" policy
>that has stood Microsoft in such stead these past few years. If you have 
>been paying attention, you will have noticed that -NO- implementation 
>meets the specifications exactly. The past few years have seen a greater
>adhearance to the specifications as implentations hav evolved. While I have
>seen behaviour that I found useful irradicated, it was done so to improve 
>the code base, esp. when the number and cluedensity of the average user
>has risen and diluted (respectively). 
>
>         if you want goofy capability, get the source, add your features,
>and don't ask questions when you need help. Standardization is the -only-
>thing that will get us where we want to go and being as strict as we can
>to adhere to those standards will get allow everyone a conistant Internet
>experience. for further evidence of the wisdom of this approach, please
>review your corporations mission statement over the years.
>
>--bill