Michael StJohns writes:
> Much improved - but still some disconnects (all review is de novo):
That's Mike. All good comments. I've attached responses and actions
(or inactions) below and will push a new version shortly as well.
Wes Hardaker
Table of Contents
_
1 DONE In Abs
Edward Lewis writes:
Ed,
Sorry for the delay in a response. Too many recent deadlines and
vacations...
> It seems that there is an impression that I feel the authors of the
> 5011-update draft are wrong choice to be documenting this. This is
> not meant to be a personal attack on the authors
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
Title : Security Considerations for RFC5011 Publishers
Authors : Wes Hardaker
On 12/7/2017 7:53 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Michael StJohns writes:
Much improved - but still some disconnects (all review is de novo):
That's Mike. All good comments. I've attached responses and actions
(or inactions) below and will push a new version shortly as well.
Wes Hardaker
Table o
To try this out, let’s use a ttl of 28 hours and an expiration of 7 days to
get an active refresh as below.
Take an activeRefresh of 14 hours (giving a fast retry of 2.8 hours and an
addHoldDown time of 30 days (720 hour). That gives you an
activeRefreshOffset of 6 hours. A perfect resolver will
