Thanks Ralf, > I fully agree here. Most of the current or older implementations > solve this by resource limiting and had no problem with tsuName. Only > some new cloud implementations had a problems. So please don’t > require those that had working mitigations to change them.
Well, not only cloud implementations: we found 34 ASes that had issues -- but again that is limited by our vantage points (sinkhole & ripe atlas). >> An additional nitpick: I think section 4. New requirement sound >> avoid term "negative" caching. In my eyes it is a bit misleading >> because "negative" is typically used for different kinds of >> answers. > Maybe failed resolution caching is a better term here. Sure, will work on that. Thanks Ralf, /giovane _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
