Not true. You have PTR records with the same service name from multiple clients 
each with different RDATA and unique timeouts as I demonstrated yesterday in 
the example.

Tom


> On Aug 27, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
> 
> For service instance names, there is only one service. So there shouldn’t be 
> a problem. 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 2:28 PM Tom Pusateri <pusat...@bangj.com 
> <mailto:pusat...@bangj.com>> wrote:
> Because even if you add TYPE, you have multiple PTR records (instance names) 
> with the same owner name, class, and type that can timeout differently.
> 
> Tom
> 
>> On Aug 26, 2018, at 11:20 PM, Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com 
>> <mailto:mel...@fugue.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> If we do that, why do we need a hash at all?
>> 
>> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 10:51 PM Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org 
>> <mailto:ma...@isc.org>> wrote:
>> I would add a covered type field to TIMEOUT (c.f. RRSIG).  I also wouldn’t 
>> have more than
>> a single timeout per record.  I’m tempted to say a single hash as well.  If 
>> there is multiple
>> timeouts per record then the blocks need to be sorted in timeout order.
>> 
>> Covered is there to reduce the number of RR’s that need to be hashed to 
>> remove a record.
>> It will also reduce the size of IXFR’s as you don’t need to re-construct a 
>> new TIMEOUT
>> record that covers every timeout at a name on each change.
>> 
>> For all records at a name is often more expensive that for all records of 
>> type covered.
>> Name servers are optimised for looking up <name,type,class> tuples rather 
>> than <name,class>
>> tuples.
>> 
>> Sorting of timeout blocks is so that you can look at the first timeout when 
>> working out
>> which TIMEOUT needs to be processed first in a zone.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mark Andrews, ISC
>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia 
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1+Seymour+St.,+Dundas+Valley,+NSW+2117,+Australia&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: ma...@isc.org 
>> <mailto:ma...@isc.org>
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to