[66314] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Upcoming change to SOA values in .com and .net zones
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Philip J. Nesser II)
Wed Jan 7 18:57:22 2004
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:08:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "Philip J. Nesser II" <pjnesser@Nesser.COM>
To: Frank Louwers <frank@openminds.be>
Cc: Richard D G Cox <Richard@mandarin.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20040108003144.A1795@openminds.be>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Go read RFC 1982. They can do it that way without any real trouble as
long as all of the secondary (B-M) servers are tweaked. Check out section
7 in particular.
---> Phil
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Frank Louwers wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:17:58PM +0000, Richard D G Cox wrote:
> >
> > | but isn't 2004010101 (today) > 1076370400 (9 Feb 2004)?
> >
> > Nope!
> >
> > >> The new format will be the UTC time at the moment of zone generation
> > >> encoded as the number of seconds since the UNIX epoch.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > ... and not as YYYYMMDDHHMMSS or any contracted version thereof!
>
> Don't they use YYYYMMDDNN now? So today's version whould be 2004010801.
> AFAIK, 1076370400 is actually "less" then 2004010801...
>
> I know there are ways to "trick" nameservers in believing less is more,
> but that requires at least 2 changes, and I don't know if that is
> actually RFC-compliant behaviour...
>
> Kind Regards,
> Frank Louwers
>
> --
> Openminds bvba www.openminds.be
> Tweebruggenstraat 16 - 9000 Gent - Belgium
>
