Wes Hardaker <wjh...@hardakers.net> wrote: > Vladimír Čunát <vladimir.cunat+i...@nic.cz> writes: > > > I'd also expect something on limits accepted by secondaries. And some > > details are probably up to further discussion (e.g. particular numbers > > and SERVFAIL), but I don't think such details would block adoption. > > That's certainly an interesting thing to think about, but it starts to > get in between the relationship of primaries and secondaries. Is that > something that should be "standardized"?
The draft is operational advice, so I think the relevant advice here is that if you are signing your zone with sloooow NSEC3 parameters, make sure your secondaries are willing to serve such a zone first. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> https://dotat.at/ Fair Isle: Cyclonic becoming northeast, 4 to 6. Moderate or rough. Rain, fog patches. Moderate or good, occasionally very poor.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
