Subject: Re: [dnsext] Comments on draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-12

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 00:51:25 +0100 (MEZ)

Also starting to catch up after a few 'unwired' days ...

Firstly, thanks for all comments received so far
(and yet expecting more support for the document!).

Andrew:
    Apparently so many folks needed a longer nap from IETF,
    and the mid-week holiday today has obviously encouraged
    many people to not return to business until Monday (Jan 11).
    Running WGLCs over this period of time obviously turned out as
    not being the proper incentive to keep folks from vacation.  :-)
    Therefore, I suggest considering to extend the current WGLCs
    by a few days.

After quickly skimming over the messages, I agree with
most editorial suggestions supplied so far, but in a few
cases I'll try to find an even better alternative.

As the current active editor of the draft, I will sum up
on Friday the changes already done on my working copy and
present my current thoughts on a few remaining details
to be addressed after closure of the WGLC.

Regarding the case preservation discussion,
at Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:49:08 -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> ...
>
> It seems to me the intention is that the server providing the AXFR
> answer should provide the entire zone in exactly the case it holds the
> data.  It should not transmit the zone such that case distinctions
> that are in the server's copy of the zone are lost.  Is that right?
> And if so, is just saying it that way enough of a clarification?
>
> A
>
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> [email-masked]
> Shinkuro, Inc.
>

Yes, that's the way I read the text.

The objective is to perferably not change the case of names in the
zone content served by the primary name server during transfer to
secondary authorities -- this essentially has nothing to do with
any case manipulation performed during loading of a primary zone
file (or similar, in other implementations), since the latter is
not visibly on-the-wire.

This goal obviously follows the principle of least surprise,
making sure that all authoritative servers synchronized via AXFR
will serve tha same zone content; this goal is independent of the
technical ways it is achieved, but it indeed has the consequences
for the application of name compression *for AXRF responses*
described in Section 3.4.

The case preservation from normal queries is related to the QNAME,
not to the name components served from the zone and not overlapping
the QNAME, which are always served "as is" from the zone content.

I'll craft short text to state the objective and include some of
the verbiage Paul Vixie has provided in response to Andrew's post.
Or does the previous consensus for that "MUST" not hold any more?

Kind regards,
  Alfred.

---

From: Bob Halley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:50:40 -0800

While I generally support draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-12, I'd like to see the comments made by Andreas Gustafsson and Brian Wellington addressed in the draft before it progresses.

/Bob