Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote: > 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).
However it is (sort of) consistent with existing cache behaviour in other similar circumstances, e.g. when there is a delegation change or a zone cut is removed or introduced, caches do not eagerly invalidate RRsets under the change. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Southeast Iceland: Southerly or southwesterly 4 or 5, increasing 6 at times in northwest. Moderate or rough. Occasional rain in northwest. Good, occasionally poor in northwest. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
