CNAME and other data -vs- could not find NS and/or SOA records

[phil-news-nospam at ipal.net]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:23:40 +0100 Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
|>>>>> "phil" == phil-news-nospam  <phil-news-nospam at ipal.net> writes:
| 
|    phil> But it needs to be done.
| 
| No it doesn't. You may think so. But nobody else seem to agree with
| you. If you disagree, write up a draft and submit it to the IETF. If
| they like it, I will be delighted to admit you were right and I was
| wrong. 

I'm not saying you are wrong.  I'm saying that protocols can be made to
work better, and implementations can be made to work around deficiencies
in protocols (in the intended functionality).

But the general reaction I'm getting here is:

1.  The protocol is the way it is, and you can't change it because your
    change would violate the protocol.

2.  You're wrong, just because I say so.

And this is going to turn people off from here, and they will go off and
do their own thing (I'm about to do that).  


| There's clearly no point continuing this discussion. You don't
| understand why your suggestion is stupid and unworkable. You won't
| listen when this is repeatedly explained to you. You don't even seem
| to appreciate your idea has a massive impact on the world's installed
| base of DNS implementations.

I will listen when someone is being clear and to the point (by answering
to my question, not someone else's that differs from mine).  So far no
one has.

BTW, I've dealt with this problem in other groups, where someone answers
someone else's question by answering in effect another question, when I
know the correct answer, by just answering the correct one myself.  Then
the person who asked is happy.  What I'm saying is that I have seen it,
and seen it often, that someone does not really read the actual question.
They gravitate to something similar, either a similar experience or a
similar FAQ entry, and assume it's an exact match, and give out a stock
answer.  I'd be rich if I had a dollar for every time someone pointed
me to an FAQ that did not have my question just because they keyed in on
just one word in my question, and not the semantics of what was asked.
That seems to be going on here.  Maybe I (and many others) just don't
word the questions very well.  Terse questions tend to be ambiguous and
verbose questions tend to be skipped over.  Usenet seems to be lose-lose.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN       | http://linuxhomepage.com/      http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/   http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------