Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-00.txt

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

If we do that, why do we need a hash at all?

On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 10:51 PM Mark Andrews <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I would add a covered type field to TIMEOUT (c.f. RRSIG).  I also wouldn’t
> have more than
> a single timeout per record.  I’m tempted to say a single hash as well.
> If there is multiple
> timeouts per record then the blocks need to be sorted in timeout order.
>
> Covered is there to reduce the number of RR’s that need to be hashed to
> remove a record.
> It will also reduce the size of IXFR’s as you don’t need to re-construct a
> new TIMEOUT
> record that covers every timeout at a name on each change.
>
> For all records at a name is often more expensive that for all records of
> type covered.
> Name servers are optimised for looking up <name,type,class> tuples rather
> than <name,class>
> tuples.
>
> Sorting of timeout blocks is so that you can look at the first timeout
> when working out
> which TIMEOUT needs to be processed first in a zone.
>
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1+Seymour+St.,+Dundas+Valley,+NSW+2117,+Australia&entry=gmail&source=g>
> PHONE: [phone]              INTERNET: [e-mail]
>
>