Wes,
On 06-09-17 18:05, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Matthijs Mekking writes:
>
> Thanks for all your points, and I've gone through and handled them all
> in the text (including discussing that we update 7583 per your request).
>
>> 2. waitTime only adds one queryInterval, while Itrp adds two. I belie
On 09/09/2017 09:22 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> [...]
> the content owner may have good and specific reasons for the TTL they
> chose, and using that data for longer than that period may be harmful,
> and must be presumed to be harmful unless explicit signaling is added
> to let the content owner speci
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> The discussion had covered the failure mode problem. There is substantial
> agreement that it's better for a stub that issues a query for localhost to
> fail than to succeed. You seem to disagree.
>
I wonder if this is simply people talking past
Wes/Warren - you still owe a response on the following.
On 7/19/2017 4:42 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
On date time vs intervals - I finally realized why Wes and I are
somewhat disconnected on this.
5011 was written as the protocol for the resolver and is totally
interval driven. (E.g. quer
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Part of the problem is that we have one TTL value for both freshness
> and don't use beyond.
>
> This is fixable. It is possible to specify two timer values. It
> does require adding signaling between recursive servers and
> authoritative
On 9/6/2017 12:05 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Matthijs Mekking writes:
Thanks for all your points, and I've gone through and handled them all
in the text (including discussing that we update 7583 per your request).
2. waitTime only adds one queryInterval, while Itrp adds two. I believe
to be safe
At Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:00:01 -0400,
tjw ietf wrote:
> When the idea of having a Call for Adoption for this document came up, we
> thought long and hard about this one. However, the comments from the
> working group focused this document to address the specific issue of the
> local hostname.
>
> T
I support the adoption of this document. Was there a discussion of any
actual downsides besides "I'd like to know if it's stale" and
monitoring?
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>
>> Part of the problem is that we ha
>
> Paul wrote:
> Evan Hunt wrote:
> (I do like the idea of advertising a separate expiry value though.)
> i think if we're going to put something into the 20-year deployment funnel
> we should treat the fixed costs as high and demand more benefits. that's
> where the proposal up-thread came from.
"John Levine" writes:
> It seems to me that if someone has enough programming skill to write a
> DNSSEC verifier for her cache or stub resolver, she has enough skill
> to treat localhost as a special case.
I've been trying to figure out for a few days now how to insert my
opinion. It's kinda li
10 matches
Mail list logo
