In message <54b98c9a.3060...@redbarn.org>, Paul Vixie writes: > > Tony Finch <mailto:fa...@cam.ac.uk> > > Friday, January 16, 2015 11:19 AM > > > > I discussed that in some detail with Olafur and Matthijs, and section > > 3 of the MIXFR draft is basically adding UPDATE syntax to IXFR. (I > > thought MIXFR should be called UXFR.) > > unless you have some reason to dislike code-reuse and library > modularity, i hope you'll make it "exactly like UPDATE" rather than > "basically adding UPDATE". > > -- > Paul Vixie
Sending UPDATE messages instead of IXFR deltas is dangerous. UPDATE is tolerent of a lots of things that you really don't want to allow when doing a incremental update of a zone. Delete of non-existant data is not a error with UPDATE. It "cannot happen" with IXFR so if you see you know you are out of sync. CNAME related changes may or may not happen depending upon the state of the zone. Adds of existing data is not a error with UPDATE. This is "cannot happen" with IXFR so if you see you know you are out of sync. Out of sync does happen. That code does get exercised. People mis-manage master zones. Database delta -> IXFR has been problematic in the past. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
