unapporved update

[Barry Margolin]

In article <199909092039.PAA00445 at achilles.ctd.anl.gov>,
Barry Finkel  <b19141 at achilles.ctd.anl.gov> wrote:
>I got the impression that BIND did not support 2052 because
>
>     1) 2052 (before 2052bis) was labeled as "experimental" and

BIND implement all the experimental features that are simple to implement;
new record types are trivial to add.  Complicated stuff like IXFR and DNS
Security have taken longer to get to the public versions.

>     2) I had seen no mention in any BIND documentation that 2052
>        was supported.
>
>Is there a list of RFCs implemented in BIND?

I've never seen such a thing.  The CHANGES file records when a specific
feature is added, but it looks like this file just lists changes since the
previous public release.  However, you can infer that RFC 2052 has been
implemented in 8.1 and 8.2 because the CHANGES file mentions a number of
fixes to SRV records:

 474.	[bug]		SRV RR names were being compressed on output.

  61.	[bug]		Dynamic update didn't understand SRV records.

  60.	[bug]		SRV records weren't decoded properly.

There wouldn't be much point to fixing a bug in a feature that doesn't
exist.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.