[ Classification Level: PUBLIC ]
Sorry, I misread the thread. I thought it was for all values in the SOA.
RFC 1982 is specific to only the serial, not relevant to
REFRESH/RETRY/EXPIRE.
Not enough caffeine...
- Kevin
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 11:28 AM Kevin Darcy <kevin.da...@fcagroup.com>
wrote:
> [ Classification Level: PUBLIC ]
>
> Apologies if this sounds condescending, but I haven't seen RFC 1982
> mentioned in this thread so far.
>
> While that RFC may not be the last word on the acceptable values of
> SOA.SERIAL, in normal operation, it does contain some advice on how to
> effectuate (or avoid) a "reset" of a zone's serial.
>
>
> - Kevin
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:49 PM Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On 18 Oct 2019, at 10:46 am, 神明達哉 <jin...@wide.ad.jp> wrote:
>> >
>> > At Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:25:29 +1100,
>> > Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > one obvious interpretation is that REFRESH/RETRY/EXPIRE are signed
>> 32
>> > > > bit integers.
>> > >
>> > > They are all intervals. How do you have a negative interval?
>> >
>> > I actually didn't expect they can be negative. My main question is
>> > whether values larger than 2^31-1 should be considered valid.
>>
>> Well they are in range. That said slaves can and do apply sanity
>> checks to these values. Both too low and too high cause operational
>> problems.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> > --
>> > JINMEI, Tatuya
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
