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
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Eric A. Hall wrote: > [assorted quote depths] > > > > (1) 8.2.3 Doesn't accept the "(" in the SOA string to be on the > > > > next line after the IN SOA. Our script-generated zonefiles, about > > > > 45000 of them, all had this. > > > > > > Neither do the relevant RFC's, or any other DNS implementation. > > > Pre-8.2.3 was simply _wrong_ to accept that syntax. > > > > Is there any particular harm from accepting this syntax. > > No and Yes. No in that an argument could be made that the old parsing > routine fell under the "be liberal in what you accept" rules. Yes in that > the Master File Format is intended to provide an interchangable database > table, so while BIND may have been liberal it was doing so at the expense > of some interoperability measures. RFC 1122 s1.2.2 may not apply directly to configuration files, but the spirit is good. The bracket acceptance would be classed as a fault-tolerance feature, if BIND had a marketing department and glossy brochures :) I can understand the annoyance felt by a large hosting provider updating BIND in an emergency and finding more than just a security fix. Pim is, I guess, concerned that similar updates in future may have longer MTTR impact. Pete Elke's point about preproduction testing could perhaps be turned from a combative tone to the constructive without loss of information. joshua
|