Subject: dynamic update zone

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:58:00 +0300

There is one implementation of dynamic update (snapshot of a future 
BIND) that allows a dynamically updated zone to be frozen - temporary 
suspension of dynamicity to allow of manual changes to a zone.  It's 
a cool feature...

When a zone is frozen, the returned status code is REFUSED, as per 
section 2.2 of RFC 2136.  The implementation is faithful to this, but 
I wonder if defining a different status code such as "FROZEN" or 
"NOTDYN" is better.

The rationale for this is that might be good to tell the updater that 
the refusal is temporary as opposed to a violation of policy.  There 
has been talk of using dynamic update in situations where direct 
communications between the updater and the admin may be difficult 
(which is why dynamic updates are in use).
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                          +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>