Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:36:04 +0100 From: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> To: "Heiko Wundram (Beenic)" <wundram@beenic.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD violates RFC2870 [was: Re: Problems with named default configuration in 6-STABLE] Message-ID: <1184672164.2017.12.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200707171308.56260.wundram@beenic.net> References: <200707162319.41724.lofi@freebsd.org> <200707171106.30795.wundram@beenic.net> <469C9E56.8070705@vwsoft.com> <200707171308.56260.wundram@beenic.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 13:08 +0200, Heiko Wundram (Beenic) wrote: > On Tuesday 17 July 2007 12:47:50 Volker wrote: > > I've googled a bit. RFC 2870 says: > > > > 2.7 Root servers SHOULD NOT answer AXFR, or other zone transfer, > > queries from clients other than other root servers. This > > restriction is intended to, among other things, prevent > > unnecessary load on the root servers as advice has been heard > > such as "To avoid having a corruptible cache, make your server a > > stealth secondary for the root zone." The root servers MAY put > > the root zone up for ftp or other access on one or more less > > critical servers. > > Read up on: > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt > > which specifically says that "should not" means "recommended not to", but not > explicitly forbidden. So, this behaviour is not in violation of RFC2870, just > discouraged by it. If the (respective) roots offer it, perfect. > Relying on a "SHOULD NOT" being ignored is a Bad Thing. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBGnKmklcRvFfyds/cRAlcnAJ9VrsYb8mX4gn9eiP1ZbgOOhWUqzgCfYc8r 0SHE+zIF0AeXjV/8R2dq818= =nQ0m -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1184672164.2017.12.camel>