Re: axfr-clarify breaking RFC 1034

To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb at cr.yp.to>
Subject: Re: axfr-clarify breaking RFC 1034
From: Joe Baptista <baptista at dot-god.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:52:10 -0500 (EST)
Cc: <ietf at ietf.org>, <iesg at ietf.org>, <namedroppers at ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <20030219054454.19702.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

On 19 Feb 2003, D. J. Bernstein wrote:

> If the BIND company wants the RFC 1034 rule changed, they can propose
> that, and we'll discuss the costs and benefits. Instead they're trying
> to slip the change past us as a ``clarification.'' You know they're
> lying; why are you condoning dishonest behavior?

maybe it's because the bind company is a vixie thingy.  and we all know a
good portion of the i$ociety owe saint vixie.

regards
joe baptista

Follow-Ups:
- Just three questions
  - From: Tomson Eric \(Yahoo.fr\)

References:
- axfr-clarify breaking RFC 1034
  - From: D. J. Bernstein

Prev by Date: Re: axfr-clarify's fraudulent claims of consensus
Next by Date: Re: axfr-clarify's fraudulent claims of consensus
Previous by thread: axfr-clarify breaking RFC 1034
Next by thread: Just three questions
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: axfr-clarify breaking RFC 1034

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.