Edward Lewis wrote:
> On 3/27/15, 20:09, "Paul Vixie" <p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
>> Edward Lewis wrote:
>>> On 3/27/15, 16:00, "Paul Vixie" <p...@redbarn.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> not just hijacked. see also "oops".
>
> My response began with objecting to the notion that we should ignore
> measurements of how the Internet was working.
i don't think that's necessary in this case. we know the number of
agents and we know that an invalidation protocol is needed and we know
we can't build a point-to-point protocol that will scale to the
population size because of the authentication overhead.
further, my proposal is a convention not a protocol. it changes nothing
on the wire. it says "if you want to do this, here's one way to do it".
it does not require a recommendation, any more than the old BIND
convention of "if the remote serial number is zero, always fetch"
required a recommendation.
if you want something that we can reach consensus on, that will be a
recommendation, and will be a protocol ("if you want to do this, here's
how to do it interoperably") then that will take at least "many more
years" if it's even possible, which i doubt.
--
Paul Vixie
_______________________________________________
dns-operations mailing list
dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
dns-jobs mailing list
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
