Re: in support of axfr-clarify

[Bruce Campbell <bc-namedroppers@vicious.dropbear.id.au>]

[ http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt ]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:

> I support the current axfr-clarify draft as-is.

Section 3. could do with a reference to an updated RCODE listing (ie,
which RFC was NOTAUTH defined in?)

I would also like to see a clear exemption for responding to a zone
transfer request if the master server feels that the slave has made too
many queries in a short space of time (phrased in such a manner that the
slave will get at least one response in a given time period).

Section 6 is partially incorrect in stating that it does not solve any
existing security-related problems, in that by removing ambiguity of which
records to transfer, you are removing the possibility of errors in a given
zone corrupting information in other zones (on the same server), and
preventing the replication of such corruption further.

Is good otherwise.

--==--
Bruce.




--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>