Whether IXFR is useful or not depends on how the zone is signed. Incrementally as records are updated or if the zone is fully resigned on every update. The server for the zone can determine if the IXFR delta response would be bigger than the AXFR style response a. Servers already switch style of response based on expected transmission size. -- Mark Andrews
> On 27 Jan 2026, at 08:42, Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ben Schwartz <[email protected]> writes: > >> Suggesting that LocalRoot resolvers use HTTP, on the other hand, seems like >> a dangerous >> shortcut. > > We could remove the suggestion, but please do note that the documents > really say implementations should use what is best for them. It > suggests that HTTP has some advantages, and you're right we should > probably add some text describing why DNS does too. IMHO, we should be > providing options not mandates for what to use. > >> (IXFR seems well-suited to LocalRoot, but we could pretty easily layer >> on ZSTD or something if needed.) > > IXFR actually isn't useful for signed zones, as the IXFR content ends up > being about the same size after every zone signing. But do note that > it's an option for URLs in the option list too. > >> The proposed "root zone publication points" system effectively >> introduces a hard dependency on HTTP, to accomplish the equivalent of >> what DNS Priming does in-band. > > No, it says that both AXFR and HTTP records should be available for use. > That's an option not a dependency. > > -- > Wes Hardaker > Google > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
