I just notice it asks for "Standards Track" document. If it aims to introduce a special use of resolver to achieve some features for their users' benefit, I think informational document may be more appropriate ? I guess, like what RFC7706 does.
Davey > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Stephane Bortzmeyer > 发送时间: 2017年9月7日 23:43 > 收件人: tjw ietf > 抄送: dnsop > 主题: Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale > > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:25:39PM -0400, tjw ietf <tjw.i...@gmail.com> > wrote a message of 77 lines which said: > > > This starts a formal Call for Adoption for > > draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale > > > > The draft is available here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale/ > > I'm not enthousiastic. We should focus on making the DNS infrastructure more > reliable, not on adding something to a pile of already fragile protocols. > > There is also an opportunity that it masks failures and prevents people from > properly assigning blame: "example.com works if I use Something Public DNS > but not if I use my ISP's resolver, therefore my ISP is broken". > > Also, the current draft does not make crystal-clear that stale data MUST NOT > be served unless no authoritative name server replies. > > If it is adopted, I think that requesting some way to convey the fact it is stale to > the client (Davey Song's message) is necessary. > > Regarding the draft, I'm surprised by the paragraph starting with "Paul Vixie > has suggested", paragraph which seems to completely ignore RFC 8020. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
