[dconn] Re: Handling of identical records

[Pawel Kowalik <[e-mail]>]

Hi Arnt,

On 07.07.26 12:23, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> Pawel Kowalik <[e-mail]> writes:
>> finally I got to draft a text which would support the issue you 
>> highlighted.
>> I propose the following text (based on current 
>> draft-ietf-dconn-domainconnect-02). 
> ...
>> Would it address your point? 
>
> Yes, I think so.
>
> However, I've forgotten the concrete case that led to it. There was 
> something concrete, this wasn't abstract what-if.
PK> this one 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/FtU0CkWKZiVE_QOMnVvCu9hacgg/
>  So I'm unsure what happens if/when one of the two want to update the 
> records later.
> Intuitively, the sequence seems correct:
>
> 1. Someone needs a record, and gets it, and depends on it.
> 2. Someone else needs the same thing, and depends on it.
> 3. One of them want to change it a year later.

PK> Domain connect has no explicit notion of "change" of a single 
record, but rather an update to the template instance (and only for 
providers who track them).
If one provider makes an update , the reference to the existing record 
of the template would be removed but the record will stay as still 
having reference to the other one. Then the changed record with run 
against conflict resolution. If no conflict then all fine. If there is 
one, the end user has to make a call. At least this is very transparent 
what happens.

>
> Point 3 may lead to an error. However, if it does, there really is an 
> error, dns/dconn is just the bearer of bad news
PK> Not really an error. See above.
> .
>
> I'll read the draft and have a think.
>
PK> great to hear further remarks.

Kind Regards,
Pawel