From owner-freebsd-arch  Mon Feb 19 12: 9:28 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [158.36.41.162])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3888B37B491
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:09:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 40267 invoked by uid 1001); 19 Feb 2001 20:09:22 +0000 (GMT)
To: danp@danp.net
Cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: DJBDNS vs. BIND
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:43:38 -0800"
References: <20010219104338.B98114@danp.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.34.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:09:22 +0100
Message-ID: <40265.982613362@verdi.nethelp.no>
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> > Hmm.  Dynamic DNS sounds like it might be in the IETF standards track,
> > actually.  Please take a look at RFC 3007. 
> 
> That doesn't mean it's not a hack.

If it is on the IETF standards track, *and* it is used, and Dan Bernstein
refuses to implement it, djbdns has a significant disadvantage.

> Would RFC 2317
> <URL:http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2317.txt> be around if BIND wasn't?

Yes. RFC 2317 describes a way to perform classless in-addr.arpa delegation. 
This is important due to CIDR. The fact that BIND zone file syntax is used
in the examples does *not* mean that this is in any way tied to BIND.

> I don't
> see any RFC's specific to Sendmail's sendmail.cf format (and subsequent
> "standards track" documents to get around its deficiencies).

If you think that's the point of RFC 2317, I'd say you have misunderstood
it rather badly.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message