Petr,

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 7:18 AM Petr Špaček <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 07. 09. 22 3:28, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> > This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the
> IETF.
> >
> >          Title           : Delegation Revalidation by DNS Resolvers
> >          Authors         : Shumon Huque
> >                            Paul Vixie
> >                            Ralph Dolmans
> >    Filename        : draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation-03.txt
> >    Pages           : 7
> >    Date            : 2022-09-06
> >
> > Abstract:
> >     This document recommends improved DNS [RFC1034] [RFC1035] resolver
> >     behavior with respect to the processing of Name Server (NS) resource
> >     record sets (RRset) during iterative resolution.  When following a
> >     referral response from an authoritative server to a child zone, DNS
> >     resolvers should explicitly query the authoritative NS RRset at the
> >     apex of the child zone and cache this in preference to the NS RRset
> >     on the parent side of the zone cut.  Resolvers should also
> >     periodically revalidate the child delegation by re-quering the parent
> >     zone at the expiration of the TTL of the parent side NS RRset.
> >
> >
> > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation/
>
> I wonder about this Datatracker line:
>
>         Intended RFC status             (None)
>
>
This just means the chairs have not selected the RFC status.
For me, I like to wait until we reach working group last call
and we listen to the working group.


What do authors plan, or WG leans to?
>


>
>
> Speaking with my BIND hat on, I would prefer Informational.
>
> Protocol in this draft is pretty complex, and so far the sky did not
> fall despite resolvers not implementing it.
>
> Based on this observation I think it should not be mandatory, and also
> that parent-centric DNS resolver implementations should not be
> "outlawed" by this (to-be) RFC.
>
>
This is good feedback, and it helps us.  We should also hear from
other implementers about their opinion on this.

thanks
tim



> --
> Petr Špaček
> Internet Systems Consortium
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to