Skip to main content

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