Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:16:52AM -0400, > Shumon Huque <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
