On Tue Sep 13, 2022 at 2:03 PM UTC, Ralf Weber 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. > >> > 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.
having implemented and operated this recursive server logic over many years, i can assure you that its cold-cache performance is broadly unremarkable. > 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. it mustn't be required but also must be permitted. that does place a constraint on the protocol's future evolution. so it's possible that neither "informational" or "experimental" are strong enough. i think if the document states that the feature is optional for implementors and operators, then its status could be proposed standard, safely. vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
