On May 27, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Evan Hunt <e...@isc.org> wrote: > One of our operations staff made what I thought was a clever suggestion > the other day: That it would be nice, from an operational standpoint, > to have a way to encode comments into a zone so that they wouldn't get > obliterated when a dynamic zone was dumped to disk, but couldn't be read > by just anybody with access to "dig". > > This draft proposes such a beast. Feedback would be lovely. > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hunt-note-rr-00.txt >
I think the type makes sense, as does the encoding. Using an EDNS0 bit however, does not makes sense to me. Flag bits are rare and precious, while 16b option codes are not. Thus, instead I think "note OK" it should be an EDNS0 option, with a new option code, an option length of 0, and no option data. Especially since bits themselves are not precious (DNS requests are no where near getting near 512b, let alone the ~1500b where fragmentation is an issue), and this is primarily for zone transfer queries anyway, which means the overhead is going to be near zero anyway. -- Nicholas Weaver it is a tale, told by an idiot, nwea...@icsi.berkeley.edu full of sound and fury, 510-666-2903 .signifying nothing PGP: http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/data/nweaver_pub.asc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
