At Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:32:56 -0400, Warren Kumari <war...@kumari.net> wrote:
> The other one is somewhat more controversial - I have already > presented the general idea at the DNS-OARC meeting, the DNS track at > RIPE, and the DNS track at NANOG. > Reactions have been, um, mixed. Some folk say it;s a no-brainer, > others seriously dislike the idea. > > Draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-dist-root-00 At a higher level I agree with this: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg12020.html I don't (yet) know whether or not the proposal is a good idea, but (at least some of) the problem description seemed a bit vague to me, specifically in the points described in Section 3.1. I see a possibility that these can matter, but I was not sure how substantial they were, and it would matter especially if the proposal is controversial. I also have a couple of minor technical comments: - is the resolver expected to reduce the TTL when it returns records from the copied root zone? If it is, should it do something special if the TTL of some of the records expires (before retransferring the zone)? - In the following part of Section 2: fail back to "legacy" operation. The resolver SHOULD attempt to restart this process at every retry interval for the root zone. What's the "retry interval" here? The RETRY field value of the root zone's SOA? If so, what if the resolver hasn't been able to validate the SOA record? -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
