Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Lameness terminology (was: Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis)

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Edward Lewis wrote: > > > If I can't find the text soon, I'll try to recreate the list of references > at least. > We are in process of implementing a "Lame delegations" policy at AFRINIC We consider "lame" any NS which is either: -

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Lameness terminology (was: Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis)

On 4/23/18, 10:23, "DNSOP on behalf of Shane Kerr" wrote: >I don't know if this is documented anywhere so that it can be >referenced properly, sorry. I am happy to discuss further but I think >this basically covers all I know. I don't mind proposing text, but >probably someone (Ed

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6781 Errata?

On 2 May 2018 at 04:35, Matthijs Mekking wrote: > I think the line: > > After that DS RR has been > published on all servers authoritative for the parent's zone, the > zone administrator has to wait at least TTL_DS to make sure that > the old DS RR has expired from caches. > > Cou

Re: [DNSOP] RFC 6781 Errata?

I think the line: After that DS RR has been published on all servers authoritative for the parent's zone, the zone administrator has to wait at least TTL_DS to make sure that the old DS RR has expired from caches. Could be part of the 'DS change' step. It qualifies as an errata