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.
- Re: DNSEXT WGLC AXFR-02 SHORT last call Josh Littlefield
- Re: DNSEXT WGLC AXFR-02 SHORT last call Josh Littlefield