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

[Shane Kerr <[e-mail]>]

Petr,

On 18/07/2024 17.09, Petr Špaček wrote:

> I'm one of the guys who implemented a server which ignored SOA serial 
> semantics on purpose - because its distributed multi-master backend 
> offered only eventual consistency.
> 
> Of course it had to expose _some_ value for SOA serial, but the fake 
> serial did not have the properties promised in RFC 1034, and there is no 
> way to make it so.
> 
> I believe some PowerDNS installations suffer from the same problem.
> 
> With this experience in mind I support Philip's proposal to add 
> instruction for authors of such servers. It does not hurt anyone and 
> it's a good reminder for authors of weird software.
> 
> If there's trouble with defining "meaningful" then we can try this 
> alternative wording:
> ----
> If a DNS zone's SOA Serial number does not conform to RFC 1034 semantics 
> then the SOA-SERIAL ZONEVERSION option SHOULD NOT be returned in a reply.
> ----

The draft has this lovely TYPE field, which defines a single option:

The first and only ZONEVERSION option TYPE defined in this document is a 
zone's serial number as found in the Start of Authority (SOA) RR.

There are also private use ZONEVERSION TYPE reserved, so I think your 
suggestion is correct for ZONEVERSION TYPE SOA-SERIAL. Anyone who wants 
to return a value that is meaningful in some other way can use one of 
the private use values.

Cheers,

--
Shane