On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 Mark.Andrews@isc.org wrote: > > All the IXFR server needs to do is determine (by some implementation > > dependent, administrator maintained method) what has changed between one > > zone version and another. How it does this is nobody's business but the > > administrator and the implementor. There are infinite possibilities, here. > > One could, for example, store differences in a series of files. The > > administrator could even make the differnce files by hand--this is an > > _implementation detail_. The IXFR server just sends a series or sequences > > consisting of a list of deleted RRs and a list of added RRs to an IXFR > > client. There is nothing more to it. (notwithstanding the optional > > condensation.) > > All of which is irrelevent to this issue. THAT's what I have been saying. You were the one who said we needed to do this to support IXFR. I've been saying that claim was wrong. Thanks for FINALLY coming round to that. > > The IXFR client must simply make the changes (again, by some > > implementation dependent, administrator maintained method) to the zone by > > deleting RRs and adding RR's in each sequence. The original version of the > > zone might have been obtained by FTP (or quantum interference, or the > > psychic network) for all we know. > > Well the problem is that you have to get the *original* version, > not a corrupted version. AXFR implementations are not returning > the data originally entered. They sure have been. > > This isn't rocket science, and doesn't require any AXFR changes. Nor does > > it require that the zone boundaries be defined only in some certain way, > > beyond the definition of zone boundaries given by the system > > administrator. > > It does however require that for a given serial number that all > sources of the zone have supplied identical contents. You should > be able to apply a IXFR delta to a copy derived from any source > and have it apply without error. None of this is relevant. All that is necessary is to delete the RRs, and insert the RRs in the sequence. If the zones are inconsistent through administrative mistake, then it won't matter what the IXFR does. > > > > Some people, many associated with Bind 9 development, assert that AXFR as > > > > commonly implemented by many implementors over many years, is broken, and > > > > can't transfer domains correctly. This claim has been refuted by > > > > demonstration by interoperability between Bind 8 and other nameserver > > > > implementations over the years, and 77% of the internet that currently > > > > does not use Bind 9, yet still does AXFR. > > > > > > All this shows is that these nameservers are not used in > > > situations where the breakage is demonstrated or the > > > administators have learn to work around the breakage or > > > choose to live with it or are unaware of it. > > > > "administrators have learn[ed] to work around [it,...] live with it [,] or > > are unaware of it". Agreed. Having done so, we don't want to stir the > > pot. > > LOL. Strange, that was my reaction, too. I'm just trying to be polite. 77% work just fine. We don't want to break 77% of the servers out there. > > Essentially, you are putting more (unnecessary) constraints on > > implementations, and thus on the administrators, who are supposed to be > > pretty free to define the zone boundaries. Of course, the specifics of an > > implementation puts some constraints on the adminstrator, but the > > administrator can choose a different implementation more to her liking. > > The constaint was already there and it is necessary for reliable > operation of the DNS. No, you ware not being honest about the contents of the Draft. See my last message to Andreas. > > > > To prevent confusion between the two proposals, I would like to rename th > > e > > > > first proposal "Bind 9 AXFR Modification", and the second proposal "AXFR > > > > Clarification". The term "axfr-clarify" will not be used. > > > > I presume agreement on the name change? > > No. Then the entire draft should be rejected since it is misleading. Please resubmit a proposal that isn't misleading the community about its purpose, impact, and contents. --Dean
