Good point, indirectly referencing RFC 2308 (I always seem to forget about that one).
So, other than SOA TTL going into the draft, I think it's all good, and please ignore everything else I said (e.g. 900). Brian On 2/22/13 11:43 AM, "Joe Abley" <[email protected]> wrote: > >On 2013-02-22, at 12:33, "Dickson, Brian" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> One question/caveat: >> >> What would the practical impact be, if the TTL on the SOA were the same >>as >> the default negative caching TTL (for the NXDOMAIN)? > >The longevity of the negative answer in the cache is defined as min(SOA >TTL, SOA MINIMUM). There is no magic, here. > >> I think it would be slightly less sniffy, to have the NXDOMAIN and the >> synthesized SOA both disappear at the same time. >> >> IIRC, the TTL would then need to be 900 rather than 604800. > >The existing AS112 servers return SOA TTL = SOA MINIMUM = 604800, per RFC >6304. Setting the SOA TTL to 900 would reduce the longevity of both the >SOA and the NOERROR/NODATA to 900 seconds from a week. I don't think >that's desirable for these zones. Note I'm assuming that NOERROR/NODATA >are cached the same way as NXDOMAIN. > >draft-kumari-omniscient-as112-01 specifies SOA MINIMUM = 604800 but >doesn't specify the SOA TTL. Should probably fix that. > > >Joe > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
