BIND 10 #1299: compare SOA serial in xfrin

[BIND 10 Development]

#1299: compare SOA serial in xfrin
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  jinmei
  jinmei                             |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:  task   |             Milestone:
                   Priority:         |  Sprint-20111220
  blocker                            |            Resolution:
                  Component:  xfrin  |             Sensitive:  0
                   Keywords:         |           Sub-Project:  DNS
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |  Estimated Difficulty:  3
Feature Depending on Ticket:  AXFR-  |           Total Hours:  0
  in                                 |
        Add Hours to Ticket:         |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by jelte):

 * owner:  jelte => jinmei


Comment:

 Replying to [comment:15 jinmei]:
 >
 > > xfrin.py.in:
 > >
 > > While correct, I fear that this message might prove unuseful; we are
 talking about a response where, so I suggest making it something like
 "Invalid number of records in question section of response to SOA query",
 or something.
 >
 > I see the point.  I've updated them in the latest commit.  Hopefully
 > they are better.
 >

 ack :)

 > > <log-level-bikeshed> should XFRIN_ZONE_SERIAL_AHEAD be a WARN instead
 of INFO? (no strong opinion, just wondering, it is something that should
 probably be looked in to) </log-level-bikeshed>
 >
 > In general, I personally believe WARN/ERROR is too verbose for events
 > that are triggered outside of the system.  So my general opinion
 > applied here.
 >
 > It's also consistent with BIND 9's policy:
 > {{{#!c
 >                       dns_zone_log(zone, ISC_LOG_INFO, "serial number
 (%u) "
 >                                    "received from master %s < ours
 (%u)",
 >                                    soa.serial, master, oldserial);
 > }}}
 >
 > I've been aware that the policy on the verbosity level is not very
 > consistent among developers.  Maybe a topic for the biweekly call?

 I seem to remember that we've had such a discussion before, I'm not
 opposed but I'm afraid that it will again result in 'we need some policy
 and look at it on a case-by-case basis', but we can certainly propose it
 as an agenda item. Regarding this choice, if it is what bind9 did I'm fine
 with it (and your reasoning is, er, reasonable too).

 So please merge :)

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/1299#comment:17>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development