IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RR Text format (was Re: Summary: What to do with expired signatures)

bert hubert <ahu@ds9a.nl> Mon, 18 February 2002 23:49 UTC

Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA23675 for <dnsext-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 18:49:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16cxNS-000E9z-00 for namedroppers-data@psg.com; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:39:22 -0800
Received: from outpost.ds9a.nl ([213.244.168.210] helo=outpost.powerdns.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16cxNQ-000E9o-00 for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:39:20 -0800
Received: by outpost.powerdns.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 10D48C60D5; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:39:18 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 00:39:18 +0100
From: bert hubert <ahu@ds9a.nl>
To: Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
Cc: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: RR Text format (was Re: Summary: What to do with expired signatures)
Message-ID: <20020219003917.A27497@outpost.ds9a.nl>
References: <200202181929.g1IJTo160792@nic-naa.net> <3C7133D2.EC81BE86@ehsco.com> <1014069044.32732.100.camel@error-messages.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <1014069044.32732.100.camel@error-messages.mit.edu>; from ghudson@MIT.EDU on Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 04:50:44PM -0500
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 04:50:44PM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-02-18 at 12:03, Eric A. Hall wrote:
> > > the utility of standardizing the text format here escapes me.
> > 
> > Two reasons: out-of-band zone replication which contributes towards
> > overall stability of the Internet's namespace, and zone directives.
> 
> (Zone directives?  I don't get it.)
> 
> There is certainly utility in being able to replicate zones out of band
> between different nameserver implementations, but is the value
> compelling?

The point is pretty moot - even without exact interoperability, zone files
are semantically all identical - RFC 1035 is quite explicit about 'records'
and how they need to be traversed to generate anwers to DNS queries.

So whatever format you think up, it is always possible to convert it to any
other format that complies with basic DNS specifications regarding records
and zones.

Even 'zone directives' can easily be expressed by explicitly supplying TTL
per record.

Regards,

bert

-- 
http://www.PowerDNS.com          Versatile DNS Software & Services
http://www.tk                              the dot in .tk
Netherlabs BV / Rent-a-Nerd.nl           - Nerd Available -
Linux Advanced Routing & Traffic Control: http://ds9a.nl/lartc

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

v2.40.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status