The logic here is: * We want LocalRoot. * LocalRoot would beneft (at least slightly) if IXFR worked well for the root zone. * The root zone could be signed in a way that is friendlier to IXFR (e.g. preserving RRSIGs if the record and ZSK haven't changed and expiration is sufficiently far out). * But that's not how it's done today. * Can, and should, the IETF advise DNS root zone signers to adjust their behavior to improve support for IXFR?
--Ben ________________________________ From: Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2026 12:48 PM To: Philip Homburg <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Wes Hardaker <[email protected]> Subject: [DNSOP] Re: DNSOPDNSOP4 documents for consideration about the future of LocalRoot behavior. Philip Homburg <[email protected]> writes: > Operation of the root zone is outside control of the IETF, so the question > is whether the IETF should create standards that depend on how the root is > currently signed? I'm not sure we were specifying anywhere that we were dependent on how the root is currently signed, so I'm a bit confused. We should specify all the transfer mechanisms that we think are suitable, and I'm certainly fine with specifying "the list should ideally include one IXFR source" or something similar. -- 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]
