Re: DNSEXT WGLC AXFR-02 SHORT last call

Josh Littlefield <joshl@cisco.com> Fri, 22 June 2001 22:37 UTC

Received: from psg.com (exim@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA13819 for <dnsext-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:37:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 3.16 #1) id 15DYKn-000KOI-00 for namedroppers-data@psg.com; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:19:21 -0700
Received: from [147.28.4.2] (helo=roam.psg.com ident=root) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #1) id 15DYKl-000KOB-00 for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:19:20 -0700
Received: from randy by roam.psg.com with local (Exim 3.22 #1) id 15DYKk-0001Ev-00 for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:19:18 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3B339C03.1741AE6A@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:26:59 -0400
From: Josh Littlefield <joshl@cisco.com>
To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
CC: DNSEXT mailing list <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>, gson@nominum.com
Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC AXFR-02 SHORT last call
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106221025140.33035-100000@hlid.dc.ogud.com>
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>
> This version is based on the feedback from the last round of WGLC and
> subsequent comments. The major changes reported by Andreas are:
> 
[...]
>
>   Added the requirement that RRs other than the SOA be transmitted
>   exactly once (Peter Koch suggested a SHOULD, but I think a
>   MUST is warranted) and the recommendation that duplicate RRs be
>   silently ignored when received.

I would prefer this be a SHOULD rather than a MUST, as Peter Koch
suggested.  That is, I don't feel its significant to *require* that the
server transmit each RR exactly once, though I think it should be
recommended.  Perhaps this also means that the slave MUST ignore duplicate
RRs, by permitting their transmission.

Additional comments:

In section 3.2, saying that the slave SHOULD ignore the ID in subsequent
messages seems incongruous with saying that the master MUST copy the ID from
the request into each response packet.  I would think the slave MAY ignore
the ID in subsequent messages unless the slave has sent multiple requests to
the master, in which case the slave MUST NOT ignore the ID in subsequent
messages, since they are needed to differentiate the response packets.

At the end of section 3.6, I think we should explicitly say that the slave
MUST NOT treat additional section RRs as zone data.  I think this would help
clarify what an "unexpected" RR is, or is not.

In section 5, while I appreciate the clarification of the first/last record
being an SOA, I think it would be helpful to explicitly state that the
transfer is completed by the packet containing the final SOA record.  And
while we've defined the server behavior as sending the SOA as the last
record of the transfer, we haven't specified the client's behavior regarding
any answer records which follow this final SOA.  I think we are implicitly
saying that a client MAY ignore any answer records which follow the final
SOA.  I'd prefer we say this explicitly.

-- 
=====================================================================
Josh Littlefield                                  Cisco Systems, Inc.
joshl@cisco.com                                      250 Apollo Drive
tel: 978-244-8378  fax: same               Chelmsford, MA  01824-3627


to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.