IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] Slamming the TCP door, was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-02

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Tue, 21 June 2011 03:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84CF811E811C for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fd6u5yKPmwE7 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A4E3511E8100 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 45657 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2011 03:20:40 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 21 Jun 2011 03:20:40 -0000
Message-ID: <4E000BAC.70000@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:10:36 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsext@ietf.org
References: <4DB81069.3080404@nic.cz> <4DF9B5BD.7010900@nic.cz> <a06240803ca1fd7525c50@10.31.201.23> <BANLkTinjRDHyKH-tLEoejodXb2+7qQLO7w@mail.gmail.com> <a06240801ca2102b8b4f2@10.31.201.23> <BANLkTikoVVaXF2_LJ3KHm6P7oFpfC+n2tw@mail.gmail.com> <a06240801ca21246f76de@10.31.201.23> <BANLkTinVfuL0WEYwaycTaAnWDS9vYF5NjQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DFEFBDE.4030303@nlnetlabs.nl> <1308572047.2742.37.camel@shane-desktop> <a06240801ca24edde2b90@[192.168.1.104]> <20110620125420.E9F9D10EF90C@drugs.dv.isc.org> <a06240802ca24f57df4ca@[192.168.128.30]> <4DFF91FD.9010508@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DFF91FD.9010508@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Slamming the TCP door, was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-02
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 03:10:59 -0000

Josh Littlefield wrote:

> The "framing" of the response data into packets for
> IXFR and AXFR is the same.  And the difference between IXFR's use of UDP
> and TCP is just the ability to use message framing in TCP.
> 
> Unfortunately RFC 1995 spells that out no more clearly than RFC 1034,

It was intentional, because I didn't want to be involved in a
discussion on how AXFR should be clarified only to delay
publication of IXFR.

> but we've had interoperable implementations that understood the proper
> framing of IXFR for more than a decade.

With RFC1995, anyone who can implement AXFR should be able to
implement IXFR, which should be just enough as an incremental
specification. :-)

						Masataka Ohta

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email