Re: [dnsext] draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-03 -- questions on s3.2.3

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

On 03/09/2012 08:00 PM, Alfred � wrote:
> Folks -- in particular implementers,
> 
> A point has been raised, and for qualified action, the draft authors
> need more information and opinions on this part of the draft:
> 
> |3.2.  IXFR Response
> |
> |[...]
> |
> |3.2.3.  Answer Section
> |
> |  The Answer section MUST be populated with the zone change information
> |  or, in the case of fallback to AXFR, the full zone contents.
> |
> |  For multi-message IXFR responses, the conceptional answer is split
> |  into segments that are sent in order.  Each segment is comprised of
> |> an integer number of full RRs, and for transport efficiency, the
> |> response messages should be filled up with answer RRs as much as
>                      ^^^^^^
> |> possible for the response message size chosen by the IXFR server,
> |> taking into account the space needed for the other sections in the
> |> messages.
> |
> |   [...]
> 
> Questions:
> 
> a)  Does the behavior described in the emphasized sentence  make
>     sense, given the optimisation goals underlying the IXFR design ?

I can see why filling up the response as much as possible is more
efficient with respect to transport (chance that lesser packets will be
needed). To me it makes sense.

> b)  Do existing implementations follow this direction ?

We don't have an IXFR server implementation (yet), but for what its
worth: NSD handles this approach for AXFR.

OpenDNSSEC will be able to server signed XFRs in version 1.4 and up and
it follows this direction for both IXFR and AXFR.

> c)  Shall we replace the tagged "should" by a "SHOULD",
>     to make the recommendation even stronger ?

I don't have a strong opinion about this, so I am guided by RFC2119 that
says use these terms with care and sparingly. My feeling is that
lowercase should is fine here.

Best regards,
  Matthijs

> 
> 
> Kind regards,
>   Alfred.
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPfUykAAoJEA8yVCPsQCW5WvQIAKzYSIZmm7AOXEk1t8LwvLuo
rIvUPq6s5YfiaTjyiuR247Vb6h5MEcZIB/ErttIFxi3gEqIetAGcV9k840qFH3F2
JvLiptmJlR9veg0YKrL2rmULaJ2pmaii1qWO+LfRsuA37SnTezd/h91SP3MAxHFi
L4h4bwluX6dAEDSSXFjyZkOD9/kn/W+nWMvJWqb8Hb90SYQV10IkjpmHoQgQeYdH
AL/wULQ0hhTfUcbyw6IesY1YlN+1Oh1hGjBSy5bfM1wU+ViFg27uBOEDMKQOVbqH
sQWlXINpwxP4kBpkPB4YilzVdY0JwM1k5ZqknkShCZJhmwNAov8edt5noc4/8n0=
=nfGh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext