The drafts do not compete in any way, they are two different extensions to the DSYNC record type (RFC 9859) that can be adopted independently. As one of the authors, I think it would be great if we adopted both (obviously).
The "scanning draft" suggests a simple mechanism for using the DSYNC record type to announce whether a zone supports delegation synchronization via scanning (if it does, it also provides som technical information). The "ddns draft" suggests a mechanism for using dynamic updates for delegation synchronization, also via the DSYNC record. A zone may well support both mechanisms, scanning and dynamic updates. That's why I think we should adopt both drafts. Moreover, a zone that _only_ uses dynamic updates (or NOTIFY, as in RFC 9859) can explicitly state that no scanner is in use via the mechanism proposed in the "scanning draft". // Leon Fernandez Research Developer The Swedish Internet Foundation https://internetstiftelsen.se/en/ ________________________________________ From: Michael Richardson <[email protected]> Sent: 17 December 2025 20:45 To: =?utf-8?B?T25kxZllaiBTdXLDvQ==?=; [email protected] Subject: [DNSOP] Re: Call for adoption: draft-johani-dnsop-delegation-mgmt-via-ddns-06 (Ends 2025-12-18) Ondřej Surý <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ondřej Surý <[email protected]> wrote: >>> gets in a way). There has been slightly more people in favor of >>> adopting this document by the working group. >> >> Reviews archives... Other than one strange email from Joss Darl >> Martinez, I haven't seen anyone opposed. But maybe I've missed that. >> I'm interested hearing from those who object, and why. > I think you misunderstood my comment. Sorry for not being clear. Oh! > I meant that this draft has received more support than > draft-berra-dnsop-announce-scanner (which I consider to be from the > same batch of drafts by Johan and friends). Yes... but it's not a case of A vs B, right? We can adopt both? They solve related, but not identical problems. Maybe one doesn't need scanning if mgmt-via-ddns is done. Maybe it's a case of Belt *AND* Suspenders being useful. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
