On 28 September 2016 at 06:42, Edward Lewis <edward.le...@icann.org> wrote:
> On 9/27/16, 18:46, "Matthew Pounsett" <m...@conundrum.com> wrote: > >Would it be better then to leave early expiry as an implementation choice > > > Ultimately, the goal of the draft is to tell a recursive server that if it > can conclusively deduce existence of a name from what it has cached, it is > allowed to do so. Today if the conclusion is positive, that's how it is. > The draft proposes to add negative conclusions as well. Perhaps getting > into the details of managing what's in the cache, which is not covered > beyond TTL expiry "rules" is causing the wrapping around the axle. (We are > talking about the fairly odd example of there being conflicting data.) > > Taking the view that this is only about interoperability, then I would say the implementor MAY treat names below the NXDOMAIN response as nonexistent, and MAY choose to expire those names early... perhaps with a suggestion that this might be the better choice for data coherence, but still leave it up to the implementor if they've got a better reason to do it otherwise.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
