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

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

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
PHONE: [phone]              INTERNET: [e-mail]