On 28 Oct 2023, at 03:44, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> 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.

I think most of us are in agreement here. That’s sort of the core intent
of draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify.

> 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.

I think this is also mostly agreed upon. Sanity check for sure. Whether
that requires a scanner or not depends (in my view) on the trigger. For a
NOTIFY a scan is obviously required to get the data to sanity check. For
an UPDATE it can be argued both ways.

Regards,
Johan

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to