On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 19:32:59 +0000 Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2025, at 03:52, Pawel Kowalik <kowa...@denic.de> wrote: > >>> 2) Why TTL is not covered? This is common that the service would > >>> also suggest an appropriate TTL for their RRs > >> The TTLs in a zone are usually controlled by the zone operator. I > >> can imange a zone owner saying at a particular record should only > >> be in a zone for so long, but not the TTL. The TTL is an > >> operational part that should be controlled bu the zone operator. > > [PK] Typically DNS operator user interface allows for setting of > > TTL, so it is in fact controlled by the user. Also most the > > services typically specify TTL value they would like to see for > > their records. > > OK, I did not know that. > > > Likely not always out of good reasons but this is a fact to > > consider. For the completeness of DUJ I would advocate to include > > TTL, even if handling would mean that it might be > > overwritten/normalised by the DNS operator. > > Let's revisit that if the WG adopts the draft. I can see "must be > specified by the application service" and "might be ignored by the > operator", but the latter makes me nervous. I wonder how the operator will handle the situation when there is already a record of a certain type and the DUJ provides a different TTL. [cut] -- Stefan Ubbink DNS & Systems Engineer Present: Mon, Tue, Wed, Fri SIDN | Meander 501 | 6825 MD | ARNHEM | The Netherlands T +31 (0)26 352 55 00 https://www.sidn.nl
pgpuPUk_ZZdTJ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
