Andrew, > Which sort of test you ought to do is governed by what kind of needs you have.
I've been in places where folks really needed to rely on generators kicking in during a power outage. When the generators turned out to be reasonably good at being pieces of industrial art because folks forgot to fill the diesel tank, there were many unhappy customers. Oddly, a periodic test of the backup generators was soon instituted. Pragmatically speaking, which sort of tests you do depend on how much you care. If you're going to go to the trouble of signing your zone, it would seem to me it implies your level of care is high enough that you'd actually try to do things so they don't break when you need them. If not, why bother signing? > Since I think I've sung that refrain to everyone's boredom, however, I'll > shut up about it now. Yep, I've given up too. Operationally, people will do what they think is appropriate regardless of what is written in an RFC. In some version of an ideal world, folks who care about "doing the right thing" could point to an RFC and ask vendors if they implement that RFC (presuming the RFC describes doing the right thing). I don't fully get why it makes sense to dumb down RFCs in this context, but I'm sure it's because I'm missing something. Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
