RE: A policy for removing named.conf options.

[Browne, Stuart via bind-users]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bind-users [mailto:bind-users-boun...@lists.isc.org] On Behalf Of
> Evan Hunt
> Sent: Friday, 14 June 2019 5:40 AM
> To: Warren Kumari
> Cc: Ondřej Surý; comp-protocols-dns-b...@isc.org
> Subject: Re: A policy for removing named.conf options.
> 
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 02:52:34PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> > all sorts of annoyance -- if I'm running low on space for cache, and
> > spend much time twiddling the "max-acache-size" knob before
> > discovering that someone has simply snipped the wires to it, I'd be
> > super-grumpy.
> 
> But hopefully in this scenario you're paying attention to log messages,
> and would have seen the "obsolete option" warning.
> 
> The question is, should your nameserver complain and keep running, or
> should it reufse to run? And for "max-acache-size", enh, I'd probably
> be okay with it.
> 
> But a standard policy that covers all deprecated options would need
> to be stricter than "enh".

For options that have passed their warning phase and have been removed, I'm all 
for BIND failing to start and named-checkconf erroring out , rather than 
quietly ignoring them.

Usless cruft is useless. You're going to the trouble of doing a 
major-version-upgrade, take the time to tune the config to suit it.

If you're using automation tools, hopefully you've run it through at least one 
test system before hitting production, yes?

Stuart

_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe 
from this list

bind-users mailing list
bind-users@lists.isc.org
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users