On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:16:52AM -0400, Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> wrote a message of 93 lines which said:
> As an implementation note, doing this only on a cache miss sounds to > me like a reasonable choice. Reasonable for the "traffic intensity and protection against random QNAME attacks", yes. But still inelegant (it violates the tree model of domain names). > Given the current thread, we should probably revise the draft to > remove text that 'sounds' like implementation advice. I'm not convinced if we have just one person, who sees in the draft things that nobody else sees. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
