On 1/8/20, 7:40 AM, "dns-operations on behalf of Niall O'Reilly"
<dns-operations-boun...@dns-oarc.net on behalf of niall.orei...@ucd.ie> wrote:
On 7 Jan 2020, at 12:53, Greg Choules wrote:
> I don't think it's a protocol violation,
I think that's arguable. RFC1035, section 6.1.3:
Both the TTL data for RRs and the timing data for refreshing activities
depends on 32 bit timers in units of seconds. Inside the database,
refresh timers and TTLs for cached data conceptually "count down", while
data in the zone stays with constant TTLs.
I'd agree that it **is not** a protocol violation based on this line of
reasoning:
Imagine the zone being re-loaded often (more than once a second) with the
effect that every second or wall clock results in the(/a/each) set's TTL
lowered by one. That's "legal" and would result in a protocol-compliant
implementation acting as observed.
Admins are allowed to do silly things ... the protocol permits that. ;). And
that is why remote, third-party debugging of server operations is tricky.
_______________________________________________
dns-operations mailing list
dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
