Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pusateri-dnsop-update-timeout-01.txt

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

I have read the document.

I have a question about:

    A zone administrator may
    want to enforce a default lifetime for dynamic updates (such as the
    DHCP lease lifetime) or the DNS Update may contain a lifetime using
    an EDNS(0) Update Lease option [I-D.sekar-dns-ul].

This seems a local policy and local implementation issue only.

   However, this
   lease lifetime is not communicated to secondary servers and will not
   endure through server software restarts.

Why does the secondary server need to know the lease lifetime? Only the
primary needs to know this because it will need to purge the records and
update the appropriate DNSSEC entries, something the secondary cannot do
anyway? In fact, Section 8 agrees with me:

    A secondary server MUST NOT expire the records in a zone it maintains
    covered by the TIMEOUT resource record and it MUST NOT expire the
    TIMEOUT resource record itself when the last record it covers has
    expired.  The secondary server MUST always wait for the records to be
    removed or updated by the primary server.

So why is the TIMEOUT record needed? If the secondary argument is
gone, the only argument left from the Introduction is server software
restart. Which seems to me to be an application issue and not a protocol
issue?

As others pointed out, introducing SHA3 into the DNS right now is not
appropriate.

I see a use for clients telling the dns update server what the maximum
possibly lifetime can be, so it can go and perform a delete request on
behalf of vanished clients. But again I don't see this as a protocol
issue needing a TIMEOUT RRTYPE ?

Did I miss anything?

Paul