DNS Zone Transfer Protocol (AXFR)
RFC 5936
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2018-12-20
|
14 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'The standard means within the Domain Name System protocol for maintaining coherence among a zone's authoritative … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'The standard means within the Domain Name System protocol for maintaining coherence among a zone's authoritative name servers consists of three mechanisms. Authoritative Transfer (AXFR) is one of the mechanisms and is defined in RFC 1034 and RFC 1035. The definition of AXFR has proven insufficient in detail, thereby forcing implementations intended to be compliant to make assumptions, impeding interoperability. Yet today we have a satisfactory set of implementations that do interoperate. This document is a new definition of AXFR -- new in the sense that it records an accurate definition of an interoperable AXFR mechanism. [STANDARDS-TRACK]') |
|
2015-10-14
|
14 | (System) | Notify list changed from <ogud@ogud.com>, ajs@shinkuro.com to (None) |
|
2010-06-28
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-06-28
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5936' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-06-28
|
14 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2010-04-07
|
14 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant |
|
2010-04-07
|
14 | Stewart Bryant | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-04-05
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | State Change Notice email list have been change to <ogud@ogud.com>, ajs@shinkuro.com from <ogud@ogud.com>, ajs@shinkuro.com, olaf@nlnetlabs.nl |
|
2010-04-05
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | State Change Notice email list have been change to <ogud@ogud.com>, ajs@shinkuro.com, olaf@nlnetlabs.nl from <ogud@ogud.com>, <okolkman@ripe.net> |
|
2010-04-02
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2010-04-01
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
|
2010-04-01
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
|
2010-04-01
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2010-03-30
|
14 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-03-29
|
14 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2010-03-29
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2010-03-29
|
14 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2010-03-29
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-03-26
|
14 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-14.txt |
|
2010-03-12
|
14 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-03-11 |
|
2010-03-11
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-03-11
|
14 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2010-03-11
|
14 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2010-03-11
|
14 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-03-11
|
14 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2010-03-11
|
14 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2010-03-11
|
14 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot comment] Abstract: The Domain Name System standard mechanisms for maintaining coherent servers for a zone consist of three elements. One mechanism is the … [Ballot comment] Abstract: The Domain Name System standard mechanisms for maintaining coherent servers for a zone consist of three elements. One mechanism is the Authoritative Transfer (AXFR) defined in RFC 1034 and RFC 1035. a. s/consist/consisting ? b. "three elements" in first sentence, then "one mechanism". Please align terms. |
|
2010-03-10
|
14 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
|
2010-03-10
|
14 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2010-03-10
|
14 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2010-03-10
|
14 | Ralph Droms | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ralph Droms |
|
2010-03-10
|
14 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
|
2010-03-09
|
14 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2010-03-09
|
14 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2010-03-08
|
14 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2010-03-08
|
14 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2010-03-07
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2010-03-04
|
14 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
|
2010-03-03
|
14 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. |
|
2010-02-25
|
14 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
|
2010-02-25
|
14 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
|
2010-02-22
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2010-02-22
|
14 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-02-22
|
14 | Ralph Droms | Last Call was requested by Ralph Droms |
|
2010-02-22
|
14 | Ralph Droms | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-03-11 by Ralph Droms |
|
2010-02-22
|
14 | Ralph Droms | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ralph Droms |
|
2010-02-22
|
14 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
|
2010-02-22
|
14 | Ralph Droms | Ballot has been issued by Ralph Droms |
|
2010-02-22
|
14 | Ralph Droms | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-02-22
|
14 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2010-02-22
|
14 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2010-02-22
|
14 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2010-02-22
|
14 | Ralph Droms | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ralph Droms |
|
2010-02-22
|
14 | Ralph Droms | [Note]: 'Andrew Sullivan (ajs@shinkuro.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Ralph Droms |
|
2010-02-18
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Publication Requested from Dead by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-02-18
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Andrew Sullivan (ajs@shinkuro.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-02-18
|
14 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Andrew Sullivan is shepherd for this document. I have read it. I believe it is ready to be forwarded. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document is very old: a draft of this name has been available in some form or another since 2000. This means that the review has been conducted over a long time, and the document reflects a large number of improvements that have been made over that period. During the WGLC, there were eight reviews or partial reviews posted of the document. This meets the WG's internal "threshold" for required reviews before advancement. Some of the review has been undertaken by those most familiar with this aspect of the protocol, but not all the reviewers were implementers or protocol experts. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? This document is an attempt to specify completely an area of an old protocol that was specified somewhat hazily in the original definition of the protocol. There is good reason to suppose that there are people who have implemented this portion of the protocol, but who have not reviewed this document (because they are not participating in the IETF). It would of course be good to get such reviews, but I cannot think of a mechanism to do so. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. The document was the subject of an especially fractious debate in an earlier period of the WG's history. There were charges that the document was an attempt to change the protocol, that people's views were suppressed, and that a then-chair of the WG acted in an arbitrary fashion. The current shepherd believes those claims to be strictly speaking irrelevant to the question of whether this document is ready for publication, but would not be surprised if the controversy were raised by some partisans of that earlier debate in any case. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Given the age of this aspect of the DNS protocol, it is a little worrisome that more people did not respond to the WGLC. The WGLC had to be extended in order to garner responses (though this appears to have been partly because of the influence of various local holiday customs of which the shepherd was unaware.) The document has been around a long time, however, and there are some who bear scars from the previous attempt to get it published (and who are therefore possibly reluctant to get too involved this time). That said, some comprehensive reviews were posted to the WG mailing list, and substantive issues were addressed in the period around the WGLC. (See, e.g., the discussion of compression starting at http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2009/msg03236.html). (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) Not recently, and not in response to WGLC, as far as the shepherd knows. If the Responsible Area Director needs additional background about the earlier controversies, please let me know and I'll prepare a summary. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. The references are split. There are no normative downrefs. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? The IANA considerations exists, and is empty. The document creates no new registries. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? N/A (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The document provides a new and complete definition of the AXFR portion of the DNS protocols, as originally specified in RFCs 1034 and 1035. Some regard the original AXFR specification as underspecified, and this document attempts to rectify that by specifying AXFR in modern language and consistent with the way the interoperating AXFR mechanism exists on the Internet. Working Group Summary The document has emerged from the Working Group after a long and somewhat controversial history. In the past there were very serious challenges both to the document and to the operation of the Working Group due to disputes about the document. These disputes find reflection in the text as it appears today. Document Quality The document has been written with an eye to the actually existing deployed instances of AXFR on the Internet, while attempting to specify AXFR as carefully and completely as possible using modern protocol language (the original specification of AXFR predates RFC 2119). The document has been through years of review by the protocol experts in the DNS Extensions Working Group. |
|
2010-01-21
|
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-13.txt |
|
2009-12-07
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-12.txt |
|
2009-10-01
|
14 | (System) | State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by system |
|
2009-10-01
|
14 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2009-09-02
|
14 | Ralph Droms | Responsible AD has been changed to Ralph Droms from Mark Townsley |
|
2009-09-02
|
14 | Ralph Droms | [Note]: '2008-6-6 New editor is Edward Lewis. Issues should have been addressed, working through the editing. Olafur recused, Andrew handling WG for this draft.' added … [Note]: '2008-6-6 New editor is Edward Lewis. Issues should have been addressed, working through the editing. Olafur recused, Andrew handling WG for this draft.' added by Ralph Droms |
|
2009-03-30
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-11.txt |
|
2009-01-05
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-10.txt |
|
2008-07-14
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-09.txt |
|
2008-06-06
|
14 | Mark Townsley | [Note]: '2008-6-6 New editor is Edward Lewis. Issues should have been addressed, working through the editing. Olafur recused, Andrew handling WG for this draft.' added … [Note]: '2008-6-6 New editor is Edward Lewis. Issues should have been addressed, working through the editing. Olafur recused, Andrew handling WG for this draft.' added by Mark Townsley |
|
2008-06-06
|
14 | Mark Townsley | Status date has been changed to 2008-6-6 from 2003-02-24 |
|
2008-06-06
|
14 | Mark Townsley | Responsible AD has been changed to Mark Townsley from Thomas Narten |
|
2008-06-02
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-08.txt |
|
2008-02-08
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-07.txt |
|
2008-01-23
|
14 | (System) | State Changes to AD is watching from Dead by system |
|
2008-01-22
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-06.txt |
|
2005-05-26
|
14 | (System) | State Changes to Dead from AD is watching by IESG Secretary |
|
2004-04-23
|
14 | Thomas Narten | State Changes to AD is watching from Waiting for Writeup by Thomas Narten |
|
2004-04-23
|
14 | Thomas Narten | [Note]: '2004-04-23: ID went through IETF LC in Feb, 2003,<br>but djb raised issues. AD review has also found<br>issues that the WG needs to discuss. Given … [Note]: '2004-04-23: ID went through IETF LC in Feb, 2003,<br>but djb raised issues. AD review has also found<br>issues that the WG needs to discuss. Given the<br>length of time since IETF LC, the document needs to<br>go back to the WG, then IETF LC again, etc.<br>' added by Thomas Narten |
|
2004-04-23
|
14 | Thomas Narten | State Change Notice email list have been change to <ogud@ogud.com>, <okolkman@ripe.net>,gson@nominum.com from <ogud@ogud.com>, <okolkman@ripe.net> |
|
2003-07-22
|
14 | Thomas Narten | Shepherding AD has been changed to Narten, Thomas from Nordmark, Erik |
|
2003-05-15
|
14 | Erik Nordmark | AD to express result of IETF last call on mailing lists. |
|
2003-02-27
|
14 | Stephen Coya | State Changes to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by Coya, Steve |
|
2003-02-10
|
14 | Stephen Coya | Status date has been changed to 2003-02-24 from 2002-11-14 |
|
2003-02-10
|
14 | Stephen Coya | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Coya, Steve |
|
2003-02-06
|
14 | Erik Nordmark | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Nordmark, Erik |
|
2002-12-18
|
14 | Erik Nordmark | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Nordmark, Erik |
|
2002-12-02
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-05.txt |
|
2002-11-14
|
14 | Stephen Coya | Draft Added by Coya, Steve |
|
2002-03-05
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-04.txt |
|
2001-07-20
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-03.txt |
|
2001-06-21
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-02.txt |
|
2000-11-13
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-01.txt |
|
2000-03-03
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-dnsext-axfr-clarify-00.txt |