On Mar 9, 2022, at 00:12, Shumon Huque <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This document looks good. Some comments:
>>
>> In fact, the Extensible Provisioning
>> Protocol (EPP) [RFC5731], that is often used by TLDs to configure
>> delegation parameters has no provision to set the TTL. This inhibits
>> a child zone owner's ability to make more rapid changes
>>
>> This is somewhat misleading. Even if EPP had the functionality, the
>> parent zone would still want to set their own TTL to reasonable values
>> for _their_ dpeloyment considerations. So the implication of the problem
>> of "EPP cannot set TTL" is not really right. I would remove this text.
>
> The first sentence is fact.
Since the E in EPP stands for extensible, and since there's an active community
(an active ietf working group, even, with participants who are registry
operators) working on such extensions, I'm not sure the truth of the first
sentence is useful generally.
in any case, I agree with Paul that the operator of a child zone generally
should have no expectation of being able to influence the TTL in the delegation
NS set (above the zone cut).
I also think it makes sense just to remove this commentary.
>> When a delegation response is received during iteration, a
>> validation query should be sent in parallel with the resolution of
>> the triggering query
"Referral response" not "delegation response" I think.
Joe
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
