"Eric A. Hall": [BIND-BUGS #1025] 8.2.3-TB6 IXFR response violates spec
Paul A Vixie
vixie at mibh.net
Sat Jul 22 15:11:54 UTC 2000
yo, kevin!
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: ehall at ehsco.com
Received: from box.mfnx.net (box.mfnx.net [204.152.184.227])
by redpaul.mibh.net (8.9.3/8.9.1) via ESMTP id BAA11556
for <vixie at redpaul.mibh.net>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:13:50 -0700 (PDT)
env-from (ehall at ehsco.com)
Received: from bb.rc.vix.com (bb.rc.vix.com [204.152.187.11])
by box.mfnx.net (8.9.3/8.9.1) via ESMTP id BAA54022
for <vixie at mibh.net>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
env-from (ehall at ehsco.com)
Received:
by bb.rc.vix.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id BAA14668
for bind-bugs-dist at isc.org; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
env-from (ehall at ehsco.com)
Received: from isrv3.isc.org (isrv3.isc.org [204.152.184.87])
by bb.rc.vix.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) via ESMTP id BAA14663
for <bind-bugs-isc at bb.rc.vix.com>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
env-from (ehall at ehsco.com)
Received: from Arachnid.NTRG.com (arachnid.ehsco.com [209.31.7.46])
by isrv3.isc.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) via ESMTP id BAA28735
for <bind-bugs at isc.org>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
env-from (ehall at ehsco.com)
Received: from ehsco.com (ferret.ntrg.com [192.168.10.10])
by Arachnid.NTRG.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.62) with ESMTP
id 516 for <bind-bugs at isc.org>; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:13:46 -0700
Message-Id: <397957BA.98A20798 at ehsco.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:13:46 -0700
From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall at ehsco.com>
Organization: EHS Company
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: bind-bugs at isc.org
Subject: [BIND-BUGS #1025] 8.2.3-TB6 IXFR response violates spec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: bind-bugs at isc.org
There seems to be a bug in the IXFR clarification spec recently
submitted, but regardless of that, there are some formatting issues with
the IXFR handling in BIND 8.2.3-TB6:
Given a slave version of 100, a master version of 102, and two
intermediary changes, the spec response is:
msg 1 SOA 102 (intro; SOA of current version)
msg 2 SOA 101 (slave version+1)
msg 3 diffs from 100
msg 4 SOA 102 (slave version+2)
msg 5 diffs from 101
msg 6 SOA 102 (outro)
BIND 8.2.3-TB6's behavior doesn't follow that format. For example:
msg 1 SOA 102 (intro SOA of current version)
SOA 100 (slave version in intro; bogus)
msg 2 SOA 101 (slave version+1)
msg 3 diffs from 100
msg 4 SOA 101 (repeat?)
msg 5 SOA 102 (slave version+2)
msg 6 diffs from 101
msg 7 SOA 102 (outro/repeat?)
The principle formatting errors are:
1) msg1 should ONLY contain the current SOA
2) msg4 should not exist
Looks like you're jumping into the SOA counter loop while you're still
in the intro section, throwing the other SOA writes off by one.
I think the example is wrong in the IXFR clarifiction draft, but will
address that separately.
Thanks
- --
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
------- End of Forwarded Message
More information about the bind-workers
mailing list