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

[David Botham]

bind-users-bounce at isc.org wrote on 06/03/2004 02:19:55 PM:
> 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.


To be clear:
My position is that you are more than welcome to change the protocol. I 
think others have said the same.  However, it is also my position that I 
do not agree with you that the protocol needs changing and I am therefore 
not a likely candidate to help you with your changes.  I think others are 
saying the same.



> 
> 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). 

I can understand how your position when you are not able to muster support 
for an idea.  I am sorry it turns you off. 

> 
> 
> | 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.
> 
[cipp...]


Dave...