RE: draft-dunlap-dns-duxfr-00.txt

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

James;

> I've got a modest suggestion.
> 
> Instead of a completely new mechanism, perhaps Masataka could simply add to
> his RFC the ability to do RR set and name deletes.   It's the need to keep
> the full change history that make the implementation of IXFR unnecessrily
> complicated.   It's also what keeps the mapping with dynamic-update from
> being straightforward.

It is a doable change and shrinks wire format a little in special cases.

However, why do you think the current IXFR specification make
the implementation unnecessarily complex?

With the current DDNS specificaiton, the implementation must
be unnecessrily complex and inefficient to perform wild card
matching to check all the possible RRs.

But, all that necessary to add IXFR is to record the change
at the place where actural RRs are added or deleted.

DDNS implementations have code to actually delete or add individual
RRs that the coding is straightforward. Right?

On the other hand, with the current IXFR, secondary servers do not
have to be unnecessrily complex and inefficient to perform wild
card matching to check all the possible RRs.

							Masataka Ohta