Re: Summary: What to do with expired signatures

[Paul Vixie <[e-mail]>]

eric just said, in comments directed at robert:

> There are valid reasons why people want it. What are your valid reasons
> for preventing other people from having it? I mean, as weak as the
> arguments for a standardized out-of-band replication system may be, there
> are no valid arguments against it that I can think of. So the question
> really is, why should we not clarify it? What is the cost?

as long as it is clarified that the whole thing is optional, that's fine.

because a number of interoperable-on-the-wire dns implementations don't
have a concept of "loading" or even "importing" their authoritative data
except via AXFR or DYNUPD or out-of-band methods such as SQL, and it
would be factually wrong of this WG to call these "nonstandard".

the ability to "load" a "zone file" is often QUITE useful, and so many
implementations (including BIND) have implemented and will continue to
implement it.  and it makes _great_ sense, at the system design level,
for there to be a standard "zone file" format to make OOB zone transport
easier.

this discussion isn't about whether it's useful, or whether the format we
use is a good one, or whether it can be or should be extended.  the topic
at hand is: can a DNS implementation which doesn't "load" zones at all but
is still interoperable-on-the-wire for udp/53 and tcp/53 be thought
incomplete from a standards point of view?  i say "no, that's fine, such
an implementation is still complete from the DNS standards point of view."

to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>