Date: 19 Dec 1999 05:34:49 -0000
Message-ID: <19991219053449.17053.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: iesg@ietf.org, djb@cr.yp.to
Subject: namedroppers censorship
References: <19991219005223.16101.qmail@cr.yp.to> <E11zWx7-0000LB-00@roam.psg.com>

Randy Bush writes:
> this belongs in bind-users@isc.org, not namedroppers

I'm not asking how to use BIND. I'm asking questions about basic DNS
interoperability issues. My message is solidly within the announced
scope of the namedroppers mailing list.

Furthermore, I didn't send my message to Bush asking his opinion on the
best mailing list to use. I sent my message to namedroppers. Apparently
Bush prevented it from being forwarded to the list subscribers.

As a DNS implementor trying to help the Internet community by breaking
the BIND monopoly, I am deeply concerned about BIND's violations of the
applicable standards. One of the contributing factors to BIND's monopoly
is the difficulty of finding out what new implementations really need to
do. I am disgusted by Bush's continuing interference with discussions on
the namedroppers mailing list.

I requested a year ago that the IESG stop using censored mailing lists
for standardization activities. I once again request that the IESG stop
using censored mailing lists for standardization activities. I request
that, in particular, the IESG move DNS standardization activities from
the namedroppers mailing list to an open mailing list.

I also request that the IESG publicly strip Bush of his position to
punish him for his censorship of namedroppers. This request does not
constitute a settlement offer.

---Dan

> > Date: 19 Dec 1999 00:52:23 -0000
> > From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
> > To: namedroppers@internic.net
> > Subject: *.143.38.in-addr.arpa
> > 
> > The servers for 143.38.in-addr.arpa respond to a PTR query for
> > 65.113.143.38.in-addr.arpa with the nonsensical referral
> > 
> >    *.143.38.in-addr.arpa NS pri1.dns.psi.net
> >    *.143.38.in-addr.arpa NS pri2.dns.psi.net
> >    *.143.38.in-addr.arpa NS pri3.dns.psi.net
> > 
> > Is this the symptom of a common configuration error or BIND bug? Does
> > BIND take any special action as a client to work around such problems?
> > 
> > According to RFC 1034, this reply ``is bogus and should be ignored.''
> > But BIND passes it along to the client---violating the RFC 1034 rule
> > that an RD+RA response must be an answer, an NXDOMAIN, or a temporary
> > failure. Why doesn't BIND say SERVFAIL here?
> > 
> > ---Dan