Re: [DNSOP] BULK RR as optional feature

Paul Vixie <> Wed, 29 March 2017 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66AC012955F for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:31:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cc2IgpG0ivDZ for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:31:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8652412956E for <>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:ec65:c0c4:f477:b801] (unknown [IPv6:2001:559:8000:c9:ec65:c0c4:f477:b801]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E45861F9C; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:31:45 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:31:44 -0700
From: Paul Vixie <>
User-Agent: Postbox 5.0.12 (Windows/20170323)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Donald Eastlake <>
CC: John Levine <>, "<>" <>
References: <20170328183156.2467.qmail@ary.lan> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] BULK RR as optional feature
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:31:52 -0000

generally, we have not worried about versioning or capability
negotiation among axfr/ixfr partners. a zone administrator can simply
choose primary and secondary servers on the basis of advertised
capabilities, and remove any who can't conform.

last time we had this discussion, it emerged that many secondary and
primary name service providers had their own private protocol and either
did not support ixfr/axfr at all, or did not support any of their
competitive extensions (like apex cname) over ixfr/axfr.

it's my view that BULK is better than $GENERATE and i would have
proposed the former rather than the latter had i known then what i know
now. i further believe that it need not be a negotiated capability
between ixfr/axfr partners.