On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, Johan Stenstam wrote:
Scanners are, of course, inefficient, and notifications are a way to improve
that. I just think that as we are making comparisons, with arguments whose
strength is (in part) based on the number of queries needed, we should get the
order of magnitude right, to make the comparisons as helpful as possible.
That's all! :)
Then, as usual, we’re in agreement.
But to me, the place for analysis of scanner efficiency (or lack thereof) is in
conjunction with the draft on generalised notifications and not here, as this
draft explicitly is intended for the use cases where there is no scanner. :-)
The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that
become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten
when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, this discussion
was called "timers vs triggers". With no clear winner, nothing was done
and thus people were forced to implementer scanners (timers). I'm happy
to see notify (triggers) in some shape or form, although in previous
wars, people wanted the notify to go "elsewhere", eg not the primary
(or maybe not even secondary) servers as to leave the production name
servers untouched.
Note that I dont think scanners can be fully omitted, as any sane parent
will do some sanity checks on its child and that's really just a scanner
without a "for domain in TLD" loop around it.
Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
