Re: [DNSOP] valid value range for SOA REFRESH/RETRY/EXPIRE

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Fri, 18 October 2019 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
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 AA69712095C for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.476
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.172, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z_cSPYMR7YNk for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-f48.google.com (mail-wr1-f48.google.com [209.85.221.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 219A712095B for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-f48.google.com with SMTP id o15so7050310wru.5 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=fOzVgv985nS/n25d0JVqKpVS9nsYsNc63ZyPXwM4am0=; b=M7WkQxPa3neiKWvavlOXLkX0ACH8bbNC/iUGIBwMgPQxEoPL3omrdtTsBi7WDRLEGu VCHrBp5Yopmfw5qhS2Sz89wOZr/kAtkdVMpjPvda6YBgdKt/CynY9A+sGjuxPtsUtvpX VH4DXhSs2jn3M6t0WYaj0EwjBKZ7iMwuISZrQWgzqXgR4hTTdTIIL0RwTPuBHtOEAWad k+CKWiDuMj+6QsUYGhzUek1tl1+a2jsOPQM43kDEPBqpO83ZSqiumch1w7OqctCLOl24 gnCjdUC5c8x6ovsi8Xx2KUruN/+4ylCByAi4zYBTYBEC5wpD/FdbSBj9hMB8FHljdxRN rBkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU+/h4CVAfe7VTSLIzG4cpXSVSlvsz0iRO+Ek5LAnC2/ud2nsej +e4SId1R6eAo/Y4SwBDRPKgiEqL1oGLcEC6RlKA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxC1ihQ7zLdSJhWg1RHEZxsnPE85gFlNSPSwYj5rSD6xeDXPzIu/mMsyIi9Dl9ZfeNJ4C7KJSWRtXzpDdkpqoo=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:ee4f:: with SMTP id w15mr9572996wro.378.1571429071324; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJE_bqcM1PvmwR-icgz4UJuwsV_21FGs615OmExvWmHCVZX4Jw@mail.gmail.com> <F8B56E64-AC0A-441E-A9C9-56E4BF02238F@isc.org> <CAJE_bqfBt+tohvCxOwdeK5uta4cicaUzEDASYkpADFgsyobK=Q@mail.gmail.com> <FEDDE742-64BB-446E-A0B7-0A04FED4B793@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <FEDDE742-64BB-446E-A0B7-0A04FED4B793@isc.org>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 13:04:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeqHNuJmAP1k8TyXRETiOraFgHkXJeMj0S9+yJZ41dndA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000960c76059534d792"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/CRozKZ8AKf_3BEeyy5vwB-WVV_s>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] valid value range for SOA REFRESH/RETRY/EXPIRE
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 20:04:35 -0000

At Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:49:40 +1100,
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

> > > > one obvious interpretation is that REFRESH/RETRY/EXPIRE are signed
32
> > > > bit integers.
> > >
> > > They are all intervals.  How do you have a negative interval?
> >
> > I actually didn't expect they can be negative.  My main question is
> > whether values larger than 2^31-1 should be considered valid.
>
> Well they are in range.

I was not sure if they are really "in range".  If the RFC explicitly
says "*unsigned* 32-bit time interval", yes, but with the lack of
"unsigned" (while explicitly using "unsigned" for SERIAL and MINIMUM)
it seemed ambiguous.  That's why I asked the question in the first
place.

> That said slaves can and do apply sanity
> checks to these values.  Both too low and too high cause operational
> problems.

Agreed, I already noted essentially the same point in my first message.

Anyway, my interpretation of the responses so far (or the lack of
thereof) is that no one knows (or cares about) the exact range (per
protocol standard) for these parameters.  That's not the best result I
wished to see, but at least it looks like I didn't miss anything
obvious for others.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya