Re: AXFR "clarify"

[Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>]

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As an implementor of AXFR nameservers, I think it's fine to completely
> specify the AXFR (and or IXFR) protocol element.
> 
> I like the idea (from Mark) to clean up the header specification for
> followup messages, and implementations can then conform to that on the
> sending side. Things like ID bits, flags. On the reading side those are
> still not trustworthy.

	When a slave is first configured it assumes the headers
	will remain sane after a initial check.  If it detects that
	the header values change between messages it rejects the
	transfer.  The slave operator the marks the master as broken
	and informs the masters operator.  Alternatively the slave
	operator could just refuse to accept transfers from that
	master.

	That master would then not be a candidate for anything that
	requires differentiation of answer streams.

	One thing we don't have is the ability to signal that a
	transfer is being aborted other than closing the connection.
 
	Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org

--
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/>