IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-03

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Thu, 05 April 2012 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2902C21F86FA; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 01:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1333616294; bh=Af5ztKeg7RMUyUwnS72s2eRkCNSoqeIYh/7WkSi6hkA=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:References:In-Reply-To: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=S+5mEB9oYhYy9lzeaVbs748bgjxDQQhf5YNOrM1jbUsglsHPTcJB0priKIGRiUTkj lHf7QiULEfzUGqv4uRPJqC/xjUprf6l3ewgulVfSXxY0Wll9TdISNjtG13s1y5A1H4 7xsmKNJPPoV6YUVdSWk7p9cfYyVaYdy9ExZIsHjw=
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1D0221F8701 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 01:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.194
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.205, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id om09ClMm-Twb for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 01:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A4C121F86FA for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Apr 2012 01:58:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 15906 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2012 09:28:11 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 5 Apr 2012 09:28:11 -0000
Message-ID: <4F7D5E50.2070405@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:56:48 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dnsext@ietf.org
References: <20120327080711.16297.49879.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <C9937256-7BFA-4A8C-A40E-970A49E58C74@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <C9937256-7BFA-4A8C-A40E-970A49E58C74@nic.cz>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] draft-ah-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr-03
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

Though appendix A has some abstract statements, I still can't
see any realistic operational reason to have IXFR-ONLY.

For operational examples discussed in ML, it is merely
necessary, in section 6.3, to state optional condensation
is "NOT RECOMMENDED".

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email