Subject: Re: [dnsext] I-D: IXFR-ONLY proposal (Was: New Version Notification for draft-kerr-ixfr-only-00)

From: joao damas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:28:14 -0400

Just reviewed this i-d and like it and find it useful and mostly  
complete.
Regarding Wouter's comment, text that provides implementation  
guidelines and further describes usage scenarios is a good thing even  
if not strictly necessary to define the proposed standard extension.  
In this spirit, either leaving the options with a MAY in them or  
writing a separate section on "guidelines" or "examples of usage" is a  
good thing for everyone who then has to use the implementations that  
come out.

Joao

On 7 Jul 2009, at 09:59, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Shane,
>
> On 07/07/2009 03:41 PM, Shane Kerr wrote:
>> I guess we can change this to SHOULD. If IXFR-ONLY breaks things then
>> implementors will either add such an option, or people will stop  
>> using
>> their software. If it doesn't break things (or cause extra delays,
>> packets, and so on), then such a knob is not necessary after all. :)
>
> I think you missed yet-another option where the master could disable
> IXFR-ONLY support for a particular zone.  But agreed with you above.
>
>> I guess either of these could be changed to a MAY. Neither of these  
>> is
>> required, because they are merely optimizations.
>
> So, all of them are not necessary.  They are not needed to make
> IXFR-ONLY work.  Therefore I propose to delete the text about the
> options entirely.
>
> Best regards,
>   Wouter