At 10:12 -0400 6/13/05, Scott Rose wrote:
-----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?
I think/believe that the statements regarding NOTIFY, IXFR, and AXFR
are just reflecting "fact" and are not making any recommendation.
On the one hand, I would recommend NOTIFY/IXFR over AXFR and over SOA
timing parameters *in general*. But that isn't needed here, nor what
I meant to suggest.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar
If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
