Bug 550196

Summary:	net-dns/djbdns: make default SOA record value as recommend
Product:	Gentoo Linux	Reporter:	andcycle-gentoo
Component:	Current packages	Assignee:	Michael Orlitzky <mjo>
Status:	RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Severity:	enhancement
Priority:	Normal
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Package list:		Runtime testing required:	---
Attachments:	make SOA record default follow RFC1912 make SOA record default follow RFC1912 v2 make SOA record default follow RFC1912 v3

Description andcycle-gentoo 2015-05-22 21:15:07 UTC

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

Comment 1 andcycle-gentoo 2015-05-22 21:16:08 UTC

Created attachment 403786 [details, diff]
make SOA record default follow RFC1912

Comment 2 andcycle-gentoo 2015-05-22 21:27:27 UTC

Created attachment 403788 [details, diff]
make SOA record default follow RFC1912 v2

should use gmtime rather than localtime

Comment 3 andcycle-gentoo 2015-05-25 07:40:30 UTC

Created attachment 403916 [details, diff]
make SOA record default follow RFC1912 v3

reasonable retry time, which should be fraction of refresh time

Comment 4 Michael Orlitzky gentoo-dev

2015-05-31 21:11:16 UTC

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.

Comment 5 Michael Orlitzky gentoo-dev

2015-11-27 16:21:31 UTC

(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...

Comment 6 andcycle-gentoo 2015-11-27 16:25:22 UTC

(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.