IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-10.txt

Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> Wed, 17 July 2024 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <tale@dd.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29BF3C14F61F for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b3376G-8mOpz for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fluff.twonth.com (fluff.twonth.com [45.79.143.238]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1A32C14F61D for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gro.dd.org (c-76-23-204-191.hsd1.vt.comcast.net [76.23.204.191]) by fluff.twonth.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F2301FCFC for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 19:30:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by gro.dd.org (Postfix, from userid 102) id B5CA81B655F; Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:30:30 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <26264.7126.718755.279371@gro.dd.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 15:30:30 -0400
From: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
To: "dnsop@ietf.org" <dnsop@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <FD3C1248-2EC5-4599-8278-066255DEC16B@verisign.com>
References: <172047613820.448901.257008321714722865@dt-datatracker-5f88556585-j5r2h> <ABA9F522-FCF4-40CB-817D-B230E09BB23F@verisign.com> <m1sTdpf-0000LYC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <FD3C1248-2EC5-4599-8278-066255DEC16B@verisign.com>
Message-ID-Hash: I2MYJBVVQP6EXD7Q6EBP52HGXJH3RBNF
X-Message-ID-Hash: I2MYJBVVQP6EXD7Q6EBP52HGXJH3RBNF
X-MailFrom: tale@dd.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-10.txt
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4CXqk_DdQfv4N0TlMFJEqUwOf1k>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

Wessels, Duane writes:
> I’m not sure about this.  Since every zone will have a SOA record,
> and every SOA record will have a serial value, I suppose the question
> becomes whether or not a serial number is “meaningful”.  I don’t know
> how a name server would determine meaningfulness.  

When I first saw Philip's message I had the same reaction, so I went
to the doc to see if "meaningful SOA" was defined previously.  It
wasn't in that specific term, but you did write, "In those cases the
SOA Serial field may not be relevant with respect to the versioning of
its content," which made sense enough for me to understand Philip's edit.

That said ...

> What would be the harm in returning a SOA-SERIAL zone version if it
> were not supposedly meaningful?

Personally I don't see sufficient reason to SHOULD NOT it.

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status