At Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:56:15 +0530, Mukund Sivaraman <m...@isc.org> wrote:
> > I've read draft-muks-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-04. I see the motivation > > of automating the synchronization of primary/secondary configurations. > > Personally, however, I'm not (yet?) convinced that this should be > > "standardized" in the form of an RFC or that this should be done > > through another tricky use of DNS. One big reason for standardization > > is to have a unified way that is interoperable with multiple different > > vendors. But when it comes to configuration, difference on > > vendor-specific options often matters, and unless the common basic set > > of configuration is sufficiently common, a generic and interoperable > > mechanism will be useless. I'm not yet convinced about it regarding > > Some background of how/why catalog zones feature in BIND 9.11 and the > draft came to be is that we often got feedback about requiring better > ways to provision zones and content on multiple nameservers, and > different operators had different ideas about it. They wanted to improve > performance, reduce the scope for mistakes, and have a method that > worked across implementations. I can understand that, and, if it mainly means different versions of BIND, that's certainly possible. If it also means a unified way that works for multiple different vendors, I personally doubt it's feasible; I suspect those operators assume some kind of magic happens in the unified mechanism and gracefully handle differences in config details amount different vendors' implementations, and would complain when they realize it doesn't work that way. So... > The draft as it stands provides a way to specify config options within > the zone, but does not specify an explicit list of options. There is no > enthusiasm among the authors to do so in this draft. ...I'm personally not convinced this proposal will be useful as an interoperable way to solve the issue (but, of course, it may be a good idea as an enhancement to BIND) unless you actually address this point. That said, > > this proposal. (in that sense, I'm curious: is there other DNS > > developer than ISC that is interested in implementing this proposal?) > > So far: I was told that PowerDNS has implemented a plug-in/script that > provides support for catalog zones. if there is actually an interest (or better, implementation or deployment cases) in having an interoperable way of synchronizing primary/secondary meta info, it may become more convincing. I'd suggest you confirming the rumor and including the implementation status in the draft. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
