From marka@isc.org Thu Mar 10 00:35:49 2016 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:24:42 -0000." X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-RT-Interface: API References: <20160309205325.GA9403@mycre.ws> <20160309214631.GA25960@isc.org> <20160309224307.GB25960@isc.org> <20160310000405.86DF3442E3C3@rock.dv.isc.org> <20160310002439.GA18980@mycre.ws> content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Message-ID: <20160310003538.A3ADF442EA19@rock.dv.isc.org> X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8 Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by bugs.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A11AD71B5A8 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:35:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FC071FCBCB for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:35:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F33616008E for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:35:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193A7160090 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:35:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id sdGT_1YNtGY2 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:35:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c110-21-49-25.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [110.21.49.25]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C512F16008E for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:35:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3ADF442EA19 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:35:38 +1100 (EST) Delivered-To: bind9-bugs@bugs.isc.org Subject: Re: [ISC-Bugs #41900] Unpresentable records cause AXFR failure? Return-Path: X-Original-To: bind9-bugs@bugs.isc.org Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:35:38 +1100 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on mx.ams1.isc.org To: bind9-bugs@isc.org From: "Mark Andrews" RT-Message-ID: Content-Length: 1105 In message , "Robert Edmonds v ia RT" writes: > Mark Andrews via RT wrote: > > I don't care what RFC 6844 says here. Once the code point is > > allocated the code point format is frozen. I also asked PHB about it and he confirmed it was ASCII only. This needs a erratra to say it is ASCII only. > Hi, Mark: > > In that case, why does BIND implement the URI RR format as specified by > RFC 7553 (actually, draft-faltstrom-uri-08), and not the URI RR format > as specified by the I-D at the point in time the URI RR type code point > was allocated? > > 3906. [protocol] Update URI record format to comply with > draft-faltstrom-uri-08. [RT #36642] Yes, I'm aware of that. I also don't like the change. One of the problems with expert review is that sloppy specs get through. > -- > Robert Edmonds > > > > -- > Ticket History: https://bugs.isc.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=41900 -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org