--On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 12:48 +0100 Tony Finch <d...@dotat.at> wrote:
> Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote: >> >> > The DNS model of master and slave servers, with the latter >> > initiating updates based on TTL values, >> >> The slaves don't use the TTL values, don't they? > > That section is a bit weird. > > Efforts > to use very short (or zero) TTLs to simulate > nearly-simultaneous updating may work up to a point but > appear to impose very heavy loads on servers and > distribution mechanisms that were not designed to accommodate > that style of working. Similar observations can be made > about attempts to use dynamic, "server-push", updating > rather than the traditional DNS mechanisms. While those > might work better than ordinary short TTLs and update > mechanisms as specified in RFC 1034 and 1035, they imply > that a "master" server must know the identities of (and > have real time access to all of) its slaves, defeating many > of the advantages of caching, particularly those associated > with reduction of query traffic across the Internet. > > It doesn't mention the venerable and widely-deployed NOTIFY, > and seems to muddle up replication to authoritative servers > and cacheing in resolvers. If it is supposed to be talking > about somthing of current relevance, it should refer > explicitly to draft-ietf-dnssd-push or whatever other > developments the author has in mind. It is indeed muddled. Thanks to both of you for pointing that out. I will try to fix. The references are another issue - while I've tried to pick up references as I went along, there are _many_ things that have been discussed, proposed, or even adopted that I haven't picked up, partially because I just don't follow some of the work closely enough. Pointers to them would be appreciated, as would text to go with them. At least in retrospect, someone closer to DNS issues than I am should have written the document I hope this will become and written it several years ago. No one did. The IAB Identifier Program could have taken it on, but they didn't (mostly, AFAICT, for good reasons) and the IAB has now closed it. I don't believe that posting a note to the IETF (or DNSOP) list saying "someone should do this" has ever been particularly productive, especially not in the last few years. WGs like DNSOP appear to be focused on responses to demands for services and behavior from the DNS that can be defined, implemented, and deployed in the relatively short term (as I think they should be -- see earlier response to Stephane). Because I am concerned about weakening the DNS for its original function and the amount of time and energy that appears to be going into "solutions" that just cannot work (the quest for fully-equivalent names, not even limited to pointers to subtrees, comes to mind), my view is that we need to start asking fundamental questions about how far it is sensible to push the boundaries of the DNS, saying in essence about many things that "we need a naming system and database for something, the DNS is out there, so let's put it in the DNS". So, driven by some other issues, including concerns that some of the proposals to "fix" the DNS (or just "fix" IDNs) could weaken it for other purposes, some apparent real disconnects in the broader Internet community about the purpose of the DNS and criteria for DNS success, and the degree to which I believe that some of the requirement are real but that trying to make proposed solutions fit in the DNS prevents work on more comprehensive and effective solutions, I finally started writing. Again, if anyone with the right background wants to be more actively involved, I would really welcome that. best, john _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
