> On 25 Feb 2015, at 09:14, I wrote: > > This is my understanding of the terms too. > > However in the child-centric case this can cause problems when the NS set > held by the parent changes (i.e. the zone is redelegated) but the NS set in > the old set of servers isn't also updated. Such a child-centric resolver may > completely fail to notice the redelegation. > > Olafur has done a lot of work categorising this behaviour - the above is > similar to slide 4 in his deck from your link, but doesn't even require > DNSSEC for it to be a problem.
I need to correct that: Olafur identified a third set called "child-sticky". It's that group that has the problem I described above, not the "child-centric" ones. Ray _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
