Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, Bob Harold wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:51 PM Paul Vixie
wrote: because of deliberate reconfiguration or takedown, i'll hope
that serve-stale offers authority operators (both apex and parent)
a signalling pattern that says, "actually, i want this d
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, Bob Harold wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:51 PM Paul Vixie wrote:
because of deliberate reconfiguration or takedown, i'll hope that
serve-stale offers authority operators (both apex and parent) a
signalling pattern that says, "actually, i want this dead, N
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, Paul Vixie wrote:
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-02.txt
because of deliberate reconfiguration or takedown, i'll hope that serve-stale
offers authority operators (both apex and parent) a signalling pattern that
says, "actually, i want
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 1:51 PM Paul Vixie wrote:
> because of deliberate reconfiguration or takedown, i'll hope that
> serve-stale offers authority operators (both apex and parent) a
> signalling pattern that says, "actually, i want this dead, NOW."
>
Good point. I think that would mean that if
Paul Vixie wrote:
> because of deliberate reconfiguration or takedown, i'll hope that serve-stale
> offers authority operators (both apex and parent) a signalling pattern that
> says, "actually, i want this dead, NOW."
Thanks for making that point for me, I did a remarkably bad job of
transcribi
because of deliberate reconfiguration or takedown, i'll hope that
serve-stale offers authority operators (both apex and parent) a
signalling pattern that says, "actually, i want this dead, NOW."
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.o
A few notes following the presentation and discussion earlier today
(unrelated to Mukund's comments - I'm just stealing a suitable thread)
Re. the EDNS options, if you go for a 1 bit version it should apply only
to the answer section. The only time this will be ambiguous is when there
are CNAME/DN
Thanks very much for the review, Mukund! Puneet has already
incorporated the editorial feedback into the GitHub copy.
Mukund Sivaraman writes:
>> "It is predicated on the observation that authoritative server
>> unavailability can cause outages even when the underlying data
>> those servers
On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 03:12:28PM +0700, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> The D flag seems unnecessary. Just the presence of the EDNS option in
> query from the client should serve to indicate to a server that the
> client explicitly does not want stale answers.
I withdraw this comment. It appears that
I've reviewed older revisions of the draft and still +1 the idea. It
would be useful practically in today's world where temporary DDoS
attacks inundate authorities.
Review comments on this revision of the draft:
>This document proposes that the definition of the TTL be explicitly
>expande
10 matches
Mail list logo
