> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Olaf M. Kolkman > > > > > >I propose to modify the 3rd paragraph of section 2 by appending your > > >text: > > > > > > Administrators of secured zones will have to keep in mind that data > > > published on an authoritative primary server will not be > > > immediately seen by verifying clients; it may take some time for > > > the data to be transfered to other secondary authoritative > > > nameservers and clients may be fetching data from caching > > > non-authoritative servers. In this light ist is good to note that > > > the time from master to slave is negligible when using NOTIFY and > > > IXFR, increasing by reliance on AXFR, and more if you rely on the > > > SOA timing parameters for zone refresh. > > > > s/ist/it/ - in there somewhere. Any other comments? > > > > Not me, if nobody else replies this will be the text.
Besides the spelling change, I have none. However, it sounds like this is flirting with a recommendation of using NOTIFY and IXFR, but not actually stating it. Is there a downside of recommending NOTIFY? Or is that a level of recommendations that is not the goal of this document? Scott > . > dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ > web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html > mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
