> -----Original Message----- > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Levine > > I realize that my biggest problem with this draft is not that > I don't think that it's useful -- we have lots of RFCs that > turned out to be useless but harmless. It's that it breaks the > DNS by being egregiously not backward compatible. >
Hi John, As always, we welcome your comments. Agreed, BULK is not 100% backward compatible. Unfortunately, we are not coming into a greenfield situation and are forced work within the confines of where we are. Sometimes an idea like this is better discussed over a cold beer or N-A beverage and my next opportunity, I hope to sit with you and others on this list. For now, I think we've narrowed the draft opposition to two camps: Camp#1) Don't force me to use IPv6 reverse, I simply will never and Camp#2) Don't break DNS, even for a second I feel I hear and understand the concerns of both camps but believe the problems may be being over stated. If you choose to not use BULK for IPv6, fine. Perhaps you may see the benefit of $GENERATE-like synthesis that can be easily AXFR'd? > > I would strongly prefer if we defer consideration of this draft > until we figure out how to do DNS versioning, some way to say > that this record type (and consequently, the zone returned to > this AXFR or IXFR) requires special processing, and if you don't > know how to do the processing, don't guess. This would update or > perhaps even replace RFC 3597. > ... > > But with BULK, if a secondary doesn't understand it, the answers > will just be wrong. > If you choose a secondary, that is unaware of BULK, you will get NXDOMAIN's when they are hit. If BULK makes it into the top-5 DNS nameserver implementations, it's only a matter of time before the next security concern will get the secondary back in sync and in the meantime, maybe you can choose a compatible one. Early adopters will see hiccups, not sure this can be avoided, but how would delaying BULK until versioning is in place be able to prevent it? Wouldn't a secondary just have stale data or some other data inconsistency based on version incompatibility? Thanks again, John > -- THESE ARE THE DROIDS TO WHOM I REFER: This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
