On 03/07/2013 08:58 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013, Tony Finch wrote:
To get back to the draft: I have not seen too many people talk about the
CNS/GLUE record types. Should those be in this draft, a separate draft,
or no where?
Why not use the child's normal NS records?
To ensure that the child is aware and willingly telling the parent to
update.
Right. Do you need more than one bit to signal this behaviour?
dotat.at. 3600 IN SYNCNS
(I tend to think a good parent would keep the delegation in sync even
without this signalling but I understand the desire for a middle way.)
Yeah, that's what I have sort of been thinking about this ... I agree
with Paul that you'd want something more general to cover DNSKEY, NS,
glue, <something else?>. I was sort of thinking SCRAPEME had a nice ring
to it. :)
I also think it makes more sense to signal the parent to act, rather
than having the parent need to periodically poll the zone to detect the
existence of special records, or updates to those records. I also like
signalling in order to avoid cluttering the child zone with these types
of hints to the parent.
Doug
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
