IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] technical errata filed for RFC 1995 (eid=3196/3197)

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Mon, 23 April 2012 10:07 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 C549D21F8692; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1335175662; bh=jSNXIN4Wgf4Z6m7Y8ie2r/lpF1Bo1Z0Zk4LqbJsEwyw=; 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-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Sender; b=LbUURLe/kfZs86cTa76kYf7uZXcBjHkDzNl7ct6+diyI9I6eBEwH//bbRtuw28Y/x XM3hcS92Ru+7Gg1wDSiOD9GnAVOzIGBWjYMa+4mUOCSRhm8CtZ8J3RBRuwvv0xoLNf QRURRX6BPE76ZDC8M1P38977/MFV3FDUEyTFb8UE=
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 5621D21F8690 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.533
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.977, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 O4WnwNGbxkpu for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:07:40 -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 72EA521F8682 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 03:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 97731 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2012 10:43:10 -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; 23 Apr 2012 10:43:10 -0000
Message-ID: <4F9529C8.2020507@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:07:04 +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: <201204181512.RAA28025@TR-Sys.de>
In-Reply-To: <201204181512.RAA28025@TR-Sys.de>
Subject: Re: [dnsext] technical errata filed for RFC 1995 (eid=3196/3197)
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-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

(2012/04/19 0:12), Alfred � wrote:

> For the record, I have now filed two corresponding Technical Errata
> including a short "Historical Note" for clarification of the
> precedence; see
>    http://www.RFC-Editor.ORG/errata_search.php?rfc=1995

For your first point:

 >   If an IXFR query with the same or newer version number than that of
 >   the server is received, it is replied to with a single SOA record of
 >   the server's current version, just as in AXFR.

the original intention is "just as for preceding SOA query in AXFR 
transaction exchanges".

For your third point, your replacement of "RRs" to "RRsets" only
increases confusion because "RRs" of RFC1995 means, according
to your terminology, "an RRset".

As RFC1035 states "a possibly partial set of RRs", the
original terminology of "RRs" mean "an RR set" should be
preserved.

 > So there never are partial RRs in any IXFR response packets.

With the following example in RFC1995:

       Answer     | JAIN.AD.JP.         IN SOA serial=3               |
                  | JAIN.AD.JP.         IN SOA serial=1               |
                  | NEZU.JAIN.AD.JP.    IN A   133.69.136.5           |
                  | JAIN.AD.JP.         IN SOA serial=2               |
                  | JAIN-BB.JAIN.AD.JP. IN A   133.69.136.4           |
                  | JAIN-BB.JAIN.AD.JP. IN A   192.41.197.2           |
                  | JAIN.AD.JP.         IN SOA serial=2               |
                  | JAIN-BB.JAIN.AD.JP. IN A   133.69.136.4           |
                  | JAIN.AD.JP.         IN SOA serial=3               |
                  | JAIN-BB.JAIN.AD.JP. IN A   133.69.136.3           |
                  | JAIN.AD.JP.         IN SOA serial=3               |

a full RR set is:

       JAIN-BB.JAIN.AD.JP. IN A   133.69.136.3
                           IN A   192.41.197.2

and

                  | NEZU.JAIN.AD.JP.    IN A   133.69.136.5           |

is a partial RR set in the IXFR response message.

 > (In the past, the IESG has asked for Errata as an argument that
 > a 'bis' document is needed; so I hope this might help with
 > draft-dnsext-rfc1995bis-ixfr.)

I still have never seen any real world operational reasoning
for IXFR-only.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email