On 01. 04. 26 17:47, Dave Lawrence wrote:
Shane Kerr writes:
One thing that I really like about the draft is that it documents
refreshing TTL values for NS on any lookup at the parent. This is
probably something resolver implementers already do, but writing it
down seems useful.
It would seem to obviate 11 versions and over 6 years of work on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-ns-revalidation/
Or maybe not. I haven't tried to reconcile them.
In other words, I don't think one document blocks the other.
I think we were told the ns-revalidation is entirely optional. The same
can be said about being parent-centric as demonstrated in the wild. If
both are optional, they can coexist and implementers/market can pick
whichever works.
--
Petr Špaček
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
