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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Thu, 16 September 2010 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 834753A6A2C for <nscp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.254
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.254 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.792, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 gZLcKubVFdrV for <nscp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (Hoffman.Proper.COM [207.182.41.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903533A68AD for <nscp@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.158] (sn87.proper.com [75.101.18.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8GLJkUa071485 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:19:48 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240837c8b839e8f192@[10.20.30.158]>
In-Reply-To: <22r5gtcwtj.fsf@ziptop.autonomica.net>
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>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:19:45 -0700
To: Lars-Johan Liman <liman@autonomica.se>, nscp@ietf.org
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:19:27 -0000

At 9:28 PM +0200 9/16/10, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:
>Hi, Paul!
>
>On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 02:57:35PM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu>; wrote
>>>> IMHO, zone content management certainly should be in scope.
>
>At 3:01 PM +0200 9/16/10, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>> -1 for a practical reason: we already have several good ways to update
>>> zone content and two are standard and use the DNS (RFC 2136 and
>>> 5936).
>
>paul.hoffman@vpnc.org:
>> Aren't those only applicable when the zone admin is also running a DNS
>> server, brings it up to date, and then tells the DNS admin to
>> synchronize? And aren't there *many* other deployment scenarios for
>> DNS content?
>
>This discussion can continue from here to eternity and back - and
>probably will. ;-)

Given that it already has, and eternity is ahead of us, yes.

>I agree with Stéphane that there are already standardized mechanisms to
>handle zone content updates. I may well be that they require the zone
>admin to run a DNS server, but you _can_ (and that's an obvious future
>to me) send dynamic updates from an application that doesn't work as a
>DNS server _to_ the master server, so _some_ of your cases can probably
>be dealt with, but not all. *)

I was not aware of those applications. Can you point to some examples?

>I agree with you that there may be scenarios where these mechanisms are
>suboptimal or even inappropriate, but there is at list _a_ mechanism (or
>two) for that, whereas in the case of sending "commands" to the DNS
>server, there is none.
>
>So, my proposal is
>
>a) Let's cut out a limited piece of work for ourselves to start with,
>   and make sure we get to the other end of it in forseeable time.
>
>b) When we do so, we should focus on things for which we have _no_
>   current alternative, as opposed to things for which we have already
>   at least one alternative, imperfect as it may be.
>
>I.e., leave out updating zone content for now - at least zone content
>for which the receiving end is authoritative.

That works for me, although it should probably be written into the charter.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium