Re: axfr-clarify breaking RFC 1034

[Mark.Andrews@isc.org]

> Mark.Andrews@isc.org writes:
> > Semi-synchronized changes have always been part of the DNS.
> 
> If there's an honest proposal to modify the DNS specifications to allow
> semi-synchronized changes (once again: parent zone being changed after
> all the child servers have changed), perhaps the discussion will reveal
> that those changes work with BIND 4, BIND 8, djbdns, etc.; that those
> changes are useful; and that nobody objects to this modification.
>
> On the other hand, if there's an honest proposal to modify the DNS
> specifications to allow _unsychronized_ changes (such as your asinine
> configuration examples), the discussion will reveal that those changes
> do _not_ work with the majority of DNS servers on the Internet, that
> those changes are _not_ useful, and that the modification is a bad idea.
>
> What we have here is much worse: a thoroughly dishonest attempt to slip
> the latter modification past us as part of an ``AXFR clarification.''
> Anyone with a shred of integrity should be opposing this fraud.

	If you want synchronized changes in the parent and child
	zones you need to write up a draft to explain how to do it.
	The current DNS does not have this capability.

	I would suggest that you will need to add inception and
	expiration times as meta data for each RR.

	I will be happy to review the draft when you make it available.

	Mark
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews@isc.org