Re: [dnsext] draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-03 -- changes since -02

Alfred wrote:

> There have been complaints that the draft already shows much too
> much context and it should better be stripped down to a pure
> specification document ignoring any applicability questions.

That's not mine.

The problem I saw was that the draft lacked use case.

> Are you now saying it should also present some kind of detailed
> use case analysis or applicability statement, far beyond what is
> said in Section 1 and Appendix A (motivation -- by existing use
> cases -- for IXFR-ONLY)?

I can see no meaningful use cases in Section 1 nor Appendix A.

While your draft seemingly assumes zones should be purposelessly
condensed, RFC1995 already says:

    But, this feature may not be so useful if an IXFR client has access
    to two IXFR servers: A and B, with inconsistent condensation results.

and

    Information about older versions should be purged if the total length
    of an IXFR response would be longer than that of an AXFR response.

that's why I can't see any meaningful use cases

> I fear this would likely disqualify the document for Standards Track.

Not even BCP, because RFC1995 already stated enough as a practical BCP.

> Do you want that?

Want what?

							Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext