Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 10:36:12AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > On 29 Mar 2018, at 9:05 am, Frederico A C Neves wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:12:09PM -0300, Frederico A C Neves wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 07:28:22AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > >>>

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 05:43:15PM +0200, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > > One comment, > > > > [3.1] As section 3 states that MIXFR is DNSSEC aware we need text > > regarding NSEC3PARAM update as well. > > > > For that I suggest to change 3.1 section name and include an extra > > paragraph. > >

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

> On 29 Mar 2018, at 9:05 am, Frederico A C Neves wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:12:09PM -0300, Frederico A C Neves wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 07:28:22AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: >>> No. You can have multiple nsec3 chains in a zone at the same time. Only one

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 06:12:09PM -0300, Frederico A C Neves wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 07:28:22AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > No. You can have multiple nsec3 chains in a zone at the same time. Only one > > is active. Some may be incomplete. > > > > Named builds and destroys chains

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 07:28:22AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > No. You can have multiple nsec3 chains in a zone at the same time. Only one > is active. Some may be incomplete. > > Named builds and destroys chains incrementally to avoid large changes. > > Timely ness of changes is more

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

No. You can have multiple nsec3 chains in a zone at the same time. Only one is active. Some may be incomplete. Named builds and destroys chains incrementally to avoid large changes. Timely ness of changes is more important than volume of changes. -- Mark Andrews > On 29 Mar 2018, at

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

Tony Finch wrote: ... I still prefer the name "UXFR (update-style IXFR)" :-) :-). +1, if we're voting. -- P Vixie ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

On 28/03/2018 15:43, Pieter Lexis wrote: > The draft speaks of an OPCode in the IANA section and of a meta > RRType in the examples and Introduction section, which is it? > > If it is an RRType, some words need to be added about the fact that > current resolvers will pass through the MIXFR query

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

Frederico, On 03/28/2018 05:06 PM, Frederico A C Neves wrote: Hi Matthijs, On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:31:57PM +0200, Matthijs Mekking wrote: All, It's been a while, but I have put up a new version of the MIXFR draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mekking-mixfr-02 The IETF 101

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

Richard, On 03/28/2018 04:44 PM, Richard Gibson wrote: I really like this document, especially the changes to version 02. Thanks:) One comment: Section 3.6 (Replace an RRset) specifies that "RDLENGTH must be non-zero" _and_ that "The same syntax is used to delete an RRset and to replace an

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

Pieter, On 03/28/2018 04:43 PM, Pieter Lexis wrote: Hi Matthijs, On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:31:57 +0200 Matthijs Mekking wrote: It's been a while, but I have put up a new version of the MIXFR draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mekking-mixfr-02 The draft

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

Tony, On 03/28/2018 04:08 PM, Tony Finch wrote: Matthijs Mekking wrote: It's been a while, but I have put up a new version of the MIXFR draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mekking-mixfr-02 I've had a quick skim and it looks nice. Thanks. Suggestions

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

Hi Matthijs, On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 03:31:57PM +0200, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > All, > > It's been a while, but I have put up a new version of the MIXFR draft: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mekking-mixfr-02 > > The IETF 101 Hackathon lead to the revival of this draft. > >

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

I really like this document, especially the changes to version 02. One comment: Section 3.6 (Replace an RRset) specifies that "RDLENGTH must be non-zero" _and_ that "The same syntax is used to delete an RRset and to replace an RRset with an RR whose RDLENGTH is zero". I think the former

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 04:43:53PM +0200, Pieter Lexis wrote: > Hi Matthijs, > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:31:57 +0200 > Matthijs Mekking wrote: > > > It's been a while, but I have put up a new version of the MIXFR draft: > > > >

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

Hi Matthijs, On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:31:57 +0200 Matthijs Mekking wrote: > It's been a while, but I have put up a new version of the MIXFR draft: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mekking-mixfr-02 The draft speaks of an OPCode in the IANA section and of a meta

Re: [DNSOP] A new version of mixfr

Matthijs Mekking wrote: > > It's been a while, but I have put up a new version of the MIXFR draft: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mekking-mixfr-02 I've had a quick skim and it looks nice. Suggestions for 2nd paragraph of intro: To keep the deltas small in