djbdns: An alternative to BIND

Mon Apr 11 19:14:10 UTC 2005

William,

On Apr 11, 2005, at 6:58 AM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> Surely, you aren't saying that is somethig wrong with that or that they
> are making non-compliant product

As far as I know, BINDv9 complies with the AXFR protocol.  Empirically, 
given BINDv9 interoperates with every DNS server that implements AXFR 
and IXFR that I'm aware of, it would seem assertions that "BIND9 is not 
compliant with AXFR standards" is simply pure crap.  There was an 
attempt to clarify various ambiguities found in the rather loose 
specification of the AXFR protocol by writing up the issues encountered 
and a solution to those issues, but that effort sunk in the IETF swamp.

> just because they choose to use different
> "proprietary" protocol when two of their products interact with each 
> other
> (while still supporting standard protocols for other systems)?

The only proprietary (in the sense that it was not specified by any 
standards group, not in the sense of protected intellectual property) 
protocol I'm aware of in BINDv9 is the "command channel" protocol used 
in rndc.

However, I don't speak authoritatively (pun intended) on BIND.

Rgds,
-drc