Re: [DNSOP] Measuring DNS TTL clamping in the wild
Hi, >>> We are getting into religion here, the original poster called people that >>> cap TTL's Heretics, >> >> Looking through the mail archives, no one other than you is using that term. > > I think this is subject to interpretation, some people view the done > differently. > The subject line felt hostile.. 2nd attempt to adjust subject-line to make it > less hostile. Oh I apologize for the terminology issue. I actually borrowed the term from two previous academic papers: [1] and [2]. [1] http://www.cs.wm.edu/~haos/papers/sigcomm-ccr-dns.pdf [2] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3143361.3143375 /giovane ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Terminology: "primary master"
Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 27 Nov 2017, at 5:22, Tony Finch wrote: > > > > A primary master is wrt a zone not a server - a zone's primary master is > > a server that's authoritative for a zone and which does not get the zone > > contents via axfr/ixfr, but instead from a master file and/or UPDATE (or > > a non-standard mechanism such as directly from a database). > > That sounds correct. It also sounds quite different than what is defined > in RFC 1996 and RFC 2136. How is this for new wording? Primary Master master server at the root of the zone transfer dependency graph. That's exactly the same meaning as what I wrote above. > The idea of a primary master is only used in and > , and is considered archaic in other > parts of the DNS. Can you please provide citations to show that it's considered archaic? > A modern interpretation of the term "primary master" is a server that is > both authoritative for a zone and that gets its updates to the zone from > configuration (such as a master file) or from UPDATE transactions. How is that different to what I wrote? Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/ - I xn--zr8h punycode Shannon: South 3 or 4, increasing 5 or 6. Moderate or rough. Drizzle. Moderate or poor. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Terminology: "primary master"
On 4 Dec 2017, at 4:08, Tony Finch wrote: Paul Hoffman wrote: On 27 Nov 2017, at 5:22, Tony Finch wrote: A primary master is wrt a zone not a server - a zone's primary master is a server that's authoritative for a zone and which does not get the zone contents via axfr/ixfr, but instead from a master file and/or UPDATE (or a non-standard mechanism such as directly from a database). That sounds correct. It also sounds quite different than what is defined in RFC 1996 and RFC 2136. How is this for new wording? Primary Master master server at the root of the zone transfer dependency graph. That's exactly the same meaning as what I wrote above. That one bit is, yes. However the rest of the quote from 2136 differs. The idea of a primary master is only used in and , and is considered archaic in other parts of the DNS. Can you please provide citations to show that it's considered archaic? Sure: earlier messages in this thread. Some people said that primary master does not need to be given in the SOA MNAME field. Some people said that there could be multiple primary masters. A modern interpretation of the term "primary master" is a server that is both authoritative for a zone and that gets its updates to the zone from configuration (such as a master file) or from UPDATE transactions. How is that different to what I wrote? Just editorial changes. --Paul Hoffman ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: In-bailiwick, Out-of-bailiwick, In-domain, Sibling domain
Greetings again. Some of the new terms added to the terminology-bis draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/)since RFC 7719 can be a bit tricky. This week, we hope you will look at the definitions in the draft for: - In-bailiwick - Out-of-bailiwick - In-domain - Sibling domain Please review these terms and comment on the list if you think the definitions should change. --Paul Hoffman [[ As a reminder, we asked the following last week, but got no reply: For the past many versions of the terminology-bis draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/), Section 2 has definitions of "Global DNS" and "Private DNS", based on the facets listed in "Naming system". This was discussed heavily on the list earlier, but it is also a pretty big change, so we want to be sure that it is what the WG wants. Please review these terms and comment on the list if you think the definitions should change. ]] ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
