North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [NANOG] Re: Reasons why BIND isn't being upgraded
Pim van Riezen ([email protected]) said, on [010201 18:58]: > > Parsing human input isn't hard, you know. Robustness doesn't come from > being anal. If there's a bogus entry, reject the entry not the entire > zone. The rejection as such doesn't even classify as bogosity, it's the > I fail to understand this. You seem to suggest that a name server should reject the SOA record, but accept and attempt to serve the zone. Precisely how would that work? > I also seriously counter your claim that having this bracket on the next > line is in any way bogus. It's visually superior to the now enforced > option of having it on the same line. There is nothing in the parser not > to understand it. Spreading data across lines is commonly accepted in a > lot of configuration languages and bind has been among this in all > versions I previously ran. Why is that now suddenly bogus? > Because rfc1035 has always defined it as bogus. The parenthesis is, as you are now no doubt aware, a line continuation character: 5.1. Format The format of these files is a sequence of entries. Entries are predominantly line-oriented, though parentheses can be used to continue a list of items across a line boundary, and text literals can contain CRLF within the text. Any combination of tabs and spaces act as a delimiter between the separate items that make up an entry. The end of any line in the master file can end with a comment. The comment starts with a ";" (semicolon). -P.
|