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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

For service instance names, there is only one service. So there shouldn’t
be a problem.

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 2:28 PM Tom Pusateri <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Because even if you add TYPE, you have multiple PTR records (instance
> names) with the same owner name, class, and type that can timeout
> differently.
>
> Tom
>
> On Aug 26, 2018, at 11:20 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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]
>>
>>
>