https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1912.txt RFC 1912 2.2 SOA records just made a patch that make djbdns default SOA fit in minimum recommend value Reproducible: Always #### original djbdns default ~# dig example.com @127.0.0.1 soa ;; ANSWER SECTION: example.com. 2560 IN SOA ns.example.com. hostmaster.example.com. 1432328325 16384 2048 1048576 2560 #### patched djbdns default ~# dig example.com @127.0.0.1 soa ;; ANSWER SECTION: example.com. 2560 IN SOA ns.example.com. hostmaster.example.com. 2015052301 1200 1200 1209600 3600
Created attachment 403786 [details, diff] make SOA record default follow RFC1912
Created attachment 403788 [details, diff] make SOA record default follow RFC1912 v2 should use gmtime rather than localtime
Created attachment 403916 [details, diff] make SOA record default follow RFC1912 v3 reasonable retry time, which should be fraction of refresh time
Can you help me understand what this patch does? * What's the problem? * How does the current behavior violate the RFC? * How does the patch fix the problem? etc.
(In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #4) > Can you help me understand what this patch does? > > * What's the problem? > * How does the current behavior violate the RFC? > * How does the patch fix the problem? > > etc. Can you help me out here? Without more information, I'm going to close this as NEEDINFO...
(In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #5) > (In reply to Michael Orlitzky from comment #4) > > Can you help me understand what this patch does? > > > > * What's the problem? > > * How does the current behavior violate the RFC? > > * How does the patch fix the problem? > > > > etc. > > Can you help me out here? Without more information, I'm going to close this > as NEEDINFO... I think I just overshot this one, it's not that necessary to follow RFC as default.
