Re: rsync vs. axfr-clarify (was: in support of axfr-clarify)

[Måns Nilsson <mansaxel@sunet.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- --On Monday, December 09, 2002 11:29:44 +0100 Bruce Campbell
<bc-namedroppers@vicious.dropbear.id.au> wrote:


> Hence, I support the general need for a clarification of AXFR so that
> various nameserver implementations can reliably act as both primary or
> secondary depending on local configuration.

I also would like to support the clarification of AXFR. The interoperable
method becomes increasingly important as different implementations take new
data storage and backend paradigms in use.[0]

As a side note: While some zones have passed the size where AFXR ceases to
be a practically feasible synchronisation method, these are in absolute
minority -- I believe they can be counted on ones fingers today. 

Those reluctant or unable to promote or use AXFR might want to document
their ideas in another draft, perhaps to DNSOP, as this is strictly a
management issue, not a protocol one. 

- -- 
Måns Nilsson            Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204         KTHNOC  MN1334-RIPE

We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.

[0] Out of the 4 or so implementations I've toyed with the last year, only
    one (BIND family) uses the classic file -- the others have switched to 
    databases, most often dbm hashes. 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (OpenBSD)

iD8DBQE99QKU02/pMZDM1cURAk+KAJ9GEOHjlXQ5yOwrmonh4N7uRn9oxQCfTr6U
lTHmkik9BIw6GDjAL+1NgOI=
=AKWB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
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/>