On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 07:28:57PM +0000, White, Andrew <andrew.whi...@charter.com> wrote a message of 284 lines which said:
> True. When a resolver gets an NXDOMAIN for, say x.example.com, would > it better to say the resolver SHOULD drop from cache all descendents > of x.example.com, or MAY? The current state of the draft is "approved by IESG". Which means that, unless a serious bug is discovered, it will be published as a RFC with only editorial changes (by the RFC editor). I don't think it is a good idea to reopen a discussion which triggered aleady many emails. > It may be computationally expensive to search cache to remove cached > NXDOMAIN responses below x.example.com, and I see no harm in letting > those cached entries expire as their TTL runs out. Which is exactly what the draft is saying: But if a resolver has cached data under the NXDOMAIN cut, it MAY continue to send it as a reply (until the TTL of this cached data expires), since this may avoid additional processing when a query is received. Section 6 provides more information about this. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
