Moin! On 13 Sep 2022, at 15:47, Tim Wicinski wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 7:18 AM Petr Špaček <pspa...@isc.org> wrote: >> 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. Here we go. I fully support what Petr said. Initial (very cold cache) DNS resolution only works from the parent down and usually is way faster. As you may recall I did not support adoption of this draft because of the same concerns initially and my stance has not changed. So if this becomes and RFC it can’t be more then informational or experimental.
So long -Ralf ——- Ralf Weber _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
