[66321] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Upcoming change to SOA values in .com and .net zones
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.)
Wed Jan 7 19:25:08 2004
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 18:04:18 -0600
From: "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <larrysheldon@cox.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Alexander Kiwerski wrote:
>
> On 7 Jan 2004 @ 15:25 PST Richard DG Cox wrote:
>
> >|On 7 Jan 2004 23:02 UTC Frank Louwers <frank@openminds.be> wrote:
> >| > generated twice per day, so NN is usually either 00 or 01.)
> >| > January 1970.) For example, a zone published on 9 February 2004 might
> >| > have serial number "1076370400". The .com and .net zones will still
> >| > be generated twice per day, but this serial number format change is in
> >| > preparation for potentially more frequent updates to these zones.
> >
> >| stuid question
> >
> >Yup!
> >
> >| 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!
>
> Um, isn't the serial number in a zone file read in by BIND as a standard
> integer? If so, then 2004010101 (date format serial) would be > 1076370400
> (UTC serial number) when compared wouldn't it as they are both 10 digit
> integers.....?
And from the stupid question file, is 1912 a standard? (RFC Editor
says it is "Informational".
