Re: [nscp] Updating zone *content* in-scope or not?

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Mon, 20 September 2010 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: nscp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nscp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4743A67AE for <nscp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.417
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.532, BAYES_40=-0.185, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 9srfGSnLXv5Y for <nscp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.133]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BFC33A67AC for <nscp@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:33975) by ppsw-33.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.159]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1OxkZ1-0008NC-gu (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:54:03 +0100
Received: from fanf2 (helo=localhost) by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local-esmtp id 1OxkZ1-0003Ok-9J (Exim 4.67) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:54:03 +0100
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 18:54:03 +0100
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Ond=F8ej_Sur=FD?= <ondrej@sury.org>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikbeJSrc0Xp6-=AhWU1LYYcwtNHT2sRGhubVC==@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1009201851390.1104@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <4C9091C8.1030702@isc.org> <p062408d6c8b692e2c226@10.20.30.158> <A5289BAE-189D-4FF0-8AEC-2CCDC06D3B43@sinodun.com> <p062408dbc8b6aaf55b1a@10.20.30.158> <F41F5A3D292BA66474A70422@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <20100916130131.GA29091@nic.fr> <p0624081fc8b7e8b23cc0@10.20.30.158> <22r5gtcwtj.fsf@ziptop.autonomica.net> <p06240837c8b839e8f192@10.20.30.158> <22k4mlbb6k.fsf@ziptop.autonomica.net> <p0624083ac8b8499641a3@10.20.30.158> <4C6A8B95E7FAF06E143D9425@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <p0624086fc8b998cb98d6@10.20.30.158> <076D7E021C1972DBD3D412B8@minbar.fac.cs.cmu.edu> <AANLkTikbeJSrc0Xp6-=AhWU1LYYcwtNHT2sRGhubVC==@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1870870024-1110528248-1285005243=:1104"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: nscp@ietf.org, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: [nscp] Updating zone *content* in-scope or not?
X-BeenThere: nscp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Nameserver control/configuration protocol discussion list <nscp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nscp>, <mailto:nscp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nscp>
List-Post: <mailto:nscp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nscp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nscp>, <mailto:nscp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:53:44 -0000

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 00:27, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>; wrote:
> >
> > As I see it, zone content management should be in scope for the
> > to-be-developed protocol, and needs to be one of the things we consider as
> > we design that protocol, even if actually defining how it works is not one
> > of the first things we work on.
>
> Well, you should probably explain why do you think we need
> yet-another-protocol for managing zone contents.
>
> There were voices against including it with reasoning (let's focus on
> things with no alternative), so if you state that this should be
> inside the charter, you should probably provide some arguments why
> *XFR method is not sufficient and what will be the improvement against
> AXFR/IXFR (+bunch of other out-of-band file transfer methods).

Dynamic DNS updates are the normal way for managing zone contents
on the master. *XFR are for copying from the master to the slaves.

I thought this group would be standardizing rndc.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>;  http://dotat.at/
HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH BACKING WEST OR NORTHWEST, 5 TO 7,
DECREASING 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6 LATER IN HUMBER AND THAMES. MODERATE OR
ROUGH. RAIN THEN FAIR. GOOD.