Re: [dns-operations] resimprove and Re: DNS Flush Protocol

2015-04-02 Thread Edward Lewis
On 3/31/15, 13:49, "Paul Vixie" wrote: > the descendant's apex NS TTL has a higher credibility. A nit - RFC 2181 uses trustworthiness, not credibility. I had to "fix" that in my discussions on the topic. (Trying to stem terminology creep.) >if you have an alternative in mind that uses some ot

Re: [dns-operations] resimprove and Re: DNS Flush Protocol

2015-03-31 Thread Paul Vixie
Edward Lewis wrote: > I just don't see using the parent TTL's as a way to go. for scale, i've proposed a convention that requires no new transactions and no new relationships. the parent TTL is communicated by the authority server to the recursive server as part of delegation, but is almost neve

Re: [dns-operations] resimprove and Re: DNS Flush Protocol

2015-03-31 Thread Edward Lewis
On 3/30/15, 19:07, "Paul Vixie" wrote: >if you want something that we can reach consensus on, that will be a >recommendation, and will be a protocol ("if you want to do this, here's >how to do it interoperably") then that will take at least "many more >years" if it's even possible, which i doubt.

Re: [dns-operations] resimprove and Re: DNS Flush Protocol

2015-03-30 Thread Paul Vixie
Edward Lewis wrote: > On 3/27/15, 20:09, "Paul Vixie" wrote: >> Edward Lewis wrote: >>> On 3/27/15, 16:00, "Paul Vixie" wrote: >>> >>> not just hijacked. see also "oops". > > My response began with objecting to the notion that we should ignore > measurements of how the Internet was working. i

Re: [dns-operations] resimprove and Re: DNS Flush Protocol

2015-03-30 Thread Edward Lewis
On 3/27/15, 20:09, "Paul Vixie" wrote: >Edward Lewis wrote: >> On 3/27/15, 16:00, "Paul Vixie" wrote: >> >>not just hijacked. see also "oops". My response began with objecting to the notion that we should ignore measurements of how the Internet was working. Orthogonally, one can design to optim

Re: [dns-operations] resimprove and Re: DNS Flush Protocol

2015-03-27 Thread Paul Vixie
Edward Lewis wrote: > On 3/27/15, 16:00, "Paul Vixie" wrote: > >> ... have you read >> and do >> you have comments? > > Speaking for myself ... - I read it back in time. I distinctly remember ... > that I didn't support it's ideas

[dns-operations] resimprove and Re: DNS Flush Protocol

2015-03-27 Thread Edward Lewis
On 3/27/15, 16:00, "Paul Vixie" wrote: >Warren Kumari wrote: >> ... >> >> I was saying is that we don't really need to reach *every* recursive, >> whatever we do manage to do will be better than the current position. > >i disagree. a solution for the big resolvers will decimate incentive for >any