On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 8:59 AM Tony Finch <d...@dotat.at> wrote: > Jiankang Yao <ya...@cnnic.cn> wrote: > > > > A new draft about root data caching is proposed, which aims to solve > > the similar problem presented in RFC7706 and gives the DNS > > administrator one more option. > > How does this relate to: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-hammer
.... and our plan is to still (in our copious free time!) update this to simplify it, and update it to be more of a "this is how implementations have implemented this" -- the document is close to cooked, and we'd dearly love a short bit from implementers describing how they did it... W > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-7706bis > > It looks like this new draft is actually a revision of: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yao-dnsop-root-cache > > Tony. > -- > f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ > Trafalgar: Southeast 6 to gale 8. Moderate or rough. Fair. Good. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
