In message <97edc878-847a-4ff3-809a-09606bebf...@karoshi.com>, manning writes: > > > On 10July2015Friday, at 13:12, Olafur Gudmundsson <o...@ogud.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:31 PM, manning <bmann...@karoshi.com> wrote: > >> > >> I am aware of at least three of the independent ideas in RFC 2181 > that folks are working on: > >> > >> draft-pfrc-2181--naming-issues-00 > >> draft-pfrc-2181-handling-zone-cuts-00 (isn't this the basis for the > dbound work?) > >> draft-pfrc-2181-resource-record-sets-00 > >> draft-pfrc-2181-tc-bit-00 > >> > >> Ok, so that is four. The rational for eight is so that nothing gets > lost and we can garbage collect RFC 2181, moving it to historic. > >> Then each idea can progress independently, without the linkage to any > of the other work and without the vestigial anchor to the > >> collective past (RFC2181). > > > > There is a difference between "someone" working on and what is > acceptable and/or relevant to the DNSOP working group. > > Please share more!!! > > The item I am working on will modify > draft-pfrc-2181-resource-record-sets-00. Why? Because this > recommendation is a significant contributing factor in the use of DNS as > a DDoS vector. > The tradeoffs in cache coherence are worth a more stable DNS. I'll let > the others working on these topics speak for themselves, if they wish.
So you want us to take it on faith that there is something there that needs fixing because you have not explained the problem or why you thing changing RFC 2181 will fix the problem despite the explict request to do so. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pfrc-2181-resource-record-sets-00 doesn't explain the problem. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
