It appears that Matthijs Mekking <matth...@pletterpet.nl> said: >Hi, > >I like this draft because of it tackles the issues of wasteful CDS >polling and it uses NOTIFY, a mechanism that is well known, already >exists in implementations, and actually feels like a good fit (as >opposed to overloading).
Agreed. >A note on where to send CDS and CSYNC notifications. I sort of >understand why the NOTIFY record includes a RRtype field, but will >parental entities really have a different target for receiving notifies >for CDS and CSYNC? I've talked to Peter at some length. The problem is that you will often have different targets for different children of the same parent, i.e., registrars rather than registries, and I don't see any good way of putting per-child info in the parent, particularly a large parent like .ORG or .COM. The existing NOTIFY for AXFR is perfectly usable without a mechanical way to say where to send the notifications, so my proposal is to continue not to have one. All of the existing AXFR NOTIFY receivers I know have ACLs to only accept notifications from relevant primary servers, often hidden ones not visible in the DNS, so even if the proposal in 5.1 didn't have scaling problems, it only addresses half the problem. So take it out. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
