On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 08:29:28AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > rpz is a defense. it assumes that the content owner is trying to hurt > me. it is therefore one step away from being an attack, and is in any > case, not an attack.
Sure. And TTL stretching assumes the content owner is a fellow victim, and someone is trying to hurt both of us by making their site inaccessible to me. Both are lies; both have a defensible moral justification. > i think that attack-p is more relevant than lie-p for this discussion. The line between attack and not-attack can be surprisingly blurry. But given that there are non-malevolent reasons for wanting to serve stale data, and solutions are being implemented (including one in BIND), I'm okay with publishing details of the method, same as with RPZ. -- Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
