NOTIFY-triggered Auto-slaving (was Re: how to list ALL zones of my master server)
kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Fri Oct 4 22:49:33 UTC 2002
Fred Viles wrote:
> Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote in news:ank54c$bbvl$1 at isrv4.isc.org:
> >>>>>> "Fred" == Fred Viles <fv+abuse at nospam.epitools.com> writes:
> > Fred> You keep ignoring the fact that what Kevin has proposed is a
> > Fred> simple BIND feature, not a protocol change. IETF is not
> > Fred> involved.
> > RFC1996 says NOTHING about slaving newly created zones.
> No one disputes that.
> > Therefore what is being suggested IS a protocol change,
> That does not follow. It would follow if the proposal was that this
> feature should required or recommended behavior in all standards
> compliant implementations, but that's not the proposal.
> > Oh and implementing this feature would appear to contradict Section
> > 3.10 of RFC1996:
> > 3.10. If a slave receives a NOTIFY request from a host that is not a
> > known master for the zone containing the QNAME, it should ignore the
> > request and produce an error message in its operations log.
> First, that's SHOULD, not MUST.
> > In the scenario you're advocating, the slave server cannot tell that
> > the NOTIFY came from a known master for the newly-added zone.
> Second, not so as you point out:
> > [It
> > cannot know in advance that the other server is master for this new
> > zone since it wasn't aware this zone existed.
> Irrelevant, the RFC does not say the slave must know *in advance*.
> > The suggested config
> > file change is instructing the slave to assume that.]
> Exactly. By definition, the slave "knows" that masters that pass
> muster are authorittive for any zone they send a NOTIFY for. IMO
> that would satisfy the RFC clause above even if it were worded as a
> MUST. In practice, an SOA query would be used to confirm, of
> > So at the very
> > least, this suggestion of you and Kevin means a clarification to RFC1996.
> I see no need. But since you feel strongly about it, by all means
> submit a proposal to the IETF if ISC accepts a patch implementing
> the feature.
> BTW, Kevin, are you going to work on one? You implied that you
> might if Mark confirmed that the feature was conceptually
> acceptable, which he seemed to do.
Well, I made a very small start last night. But every minute I spend defending
the proposal here on bind-users is one less minute I can spend developing it.
More information about the bind-users