Re: [dnsext] request to adopt draft-andrews-dnsext-expire-00.txt

Kevin Darcy <kcd@chrysler.com> Wed, 26 November 2008 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B902F3A6862; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:56:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cr39wBgf1oD0; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:56:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D66F03A680F; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:56:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>) id 1L5DII-000L9G-3z for namedroppers-data@psg.com; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:50:34 +0000
Received: from [129.9.40.25] (helo=odbmap01.extra.chrysler.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kcd@chrysler.com>) id 1L5DI9-000L89-Je for namedroppers@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:50:27 +0000
Received: from shmsp085.shdc.chrysler.com (unknown [129.9.158.254]) by odbmap01.extra.chrysler.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 280FE4E4003 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:50:05 -0500 (EST)
X-AuditID: 81092818-a7688bb000000b8a-6e-492ce38dbfde
Received: from wokcdts1.is.chrysler.com (wokcdts1.is.chrysler.com [53.230.98.85]) by shmsp085.shdc.chrysler.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id E17F147A2 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:50:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wokcdts1.is.chrysler.com (8.13.6/8.9.1) with ESMTP id mAQ5o4QB014881 for <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:50:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <492CE38C.7090006@chrysler.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:50:04 -0500
From: Kevin Darcy <kcd@chrysler.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070802)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF DNSEXT WG <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] request to adopt draft-andrews-dnsext-expire-00.txt
References: <200811252253.mAPMr5pc013297@drugs.dv.isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <200811252253.mAPMr5pc013297@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Sender: owner-namedroppers@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <namedroppers.ops.ietf.org>

Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <20081125172801.GG8879@unknown.office.denic.de>, Peter Koch writes:
>   
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 03:52:59AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>     
>>> 	As per the chairs' instructions, this is a request for
>>> 	dnsext to adopt draft-andrews-dnsext-expire-00.txt as a wg
>>> 	item.
>>>       
>> this draft seems to assume that EXPIRE is a tool to deterministically bring
>> a zone out of service, controlled by and to the benefit of the zone
>> maintainer.  My reading of RFC 1034, section 4.3.5 is different: EXPIRE
>> is just a relief for the slave, so it doesn't have to waste more resources
>> on SOA checks.  I do not see how self-sustaining XFR-loops would hurt there.
>> Actually, many zones use dangerously low EXPIRE values and accelerating
>> expiration (independent of loops) might be counterproductive for them.
>>     
>
> 	The purpose of expire is to stop stale data being served.
>
> 	"If the secondary finds it impossible to perform a serial
> 	check for the EXPIRE interval, it must assume that its copy
> 	of the zone is obsolete an discard it."
>
> 	No where do I see any text which says that a slave will
> 	stop attempting to transfer the zone if it's old copy has
> 	expired.
>   
Indeed, unless one interprets "discard" in the RFC as implying actual 
zone removal. I interpret it as more of a "defined but disabled" status.

One would hope, however, that implementations, if any, which continue to 
attempt refreshes after expiration, would be reasonable and prioritize 
refreshes of "live" zones over ones which are expired and -might- become 
available again. Maybe an exponential backoff to some baseline, largish 
refresh interval (e.g. a day or more) would be appropriate.

                                                                         
               - Kevin


--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>