Moin!
As the mic line was closed after Mark, and I didn’t have anything new
to say meaning I support the draft but don’t like the EDNS options
before Mark spoke I use email to comment on Marks comments.
We already have a mechanism where the Authority tells the resolver how
long to cache
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
> Shumon Huque wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Paul Vixie > ...
> >
> > speaking of resimprove, i hope you'll include in this draft the idea
> of
> > using delegation-TTL as a
Shumon Huque wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Paul Vixie ...
>
> speaking of resimprove, i hope you'll include in this draft the idea of
> using delegation-TTL as a delegation-recheck interval, and using an
> authoritative NXDOMAIN from the
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> since it allocates no code point and the method requires no interop,
> this draft feels a bit like resimprove, which died on the vine for no
> reason i can now recall. it's harmless as an FYI, but does not belong on
> the
Paul Vixie writes:
> speaking of resimprove, i hope you'll include in this draft the idea of
> using delegation-TTL as a delegation-recheck interval, and using an
> authoritative NXDOMAIN from the delegator as proof that you need to run
> an "rm -rf" in your cache.
I definitely like the latter
Warren Kumari wrote:
> ... I think
> that the actual algorithm specified is a secondary consideration --
> first we need to agree on if the concept / idea is good for general
> use.
that will depend on the algorithm. for example if it's only stretchy for
timeouts and servfail, but nxdomain is
Hello Shumon,
On 28 Mar 2017, at 14:08, Shumon Huque wrote:
OpenDNS also has had a similar feature (exact protocol unpublished
AFAICT)
for a while now (Smartcache, ~ 2009 I think).
There is some background at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt9VUPDoZk0
starting at 14:33. Slides at
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Pieter Lexis wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:19:09 -0400
> Jared Mauch wrote:
>
>> I will note there are other implementations out there as well, such as in
>> unbound. serve-expired configuration directive is
Pieter Lexis writes:
> I feel that the authors should attempt to describe the goal of the
> algorithm and suggest possible limits and describe pitfalls rather
> than describing the exact algorithm to use.
I confess I'm a bit flummoxed by this comment, as I believe the
document already does
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> IOn Mar 27, 2017, at 5:59 PM, P Vix wrote:
> >
> > I agree to review and comment. Note that I am provisionally negative to
> the idea itself, and my review may reflect that. Vixie
>
>
> I will note
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:19:09 -0400
Jared Mauch wrote:
> I will note there are other implementations out there as well, such as in
> unbound. serve-expired configuration directive is available there as well.
I feel that the authors should attempt to describe the goal of
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 6:46 PM, Robert Edmonds wrote:
>
> Jared Mauch wrote:
>> IOn Mar 27, 2017, at 5:59 PM, P Vix wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree to review and comment. Note that I am provisionally negative to the
>>> idea itself, and my review may reflect that.
> On Mar 27, 2017, at 5:56 PM, Dave Lawrence wrote:
>
> Warren and I are hoping for WG adoption.
[clarification]
I support adoption when the chairs request it.
- Jared
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
Jared Mauch wrote:
> IOn Mar 27, 2017, at 5:59 PM, P Vix wrote:
> >
> > I agree to review and comment. Note that I am provisionally negative to the
> > idea itself, and my review may reflect that. Vixie
>
>
> I will note there are other implementations out there as well,
IOn Mar 27, 2017, at 5:59 PM, P Vix wrote:
>
> I agree to review and comment. Note that I am provisionally negative to the
> idea itself, and my review may reflect that. Vixie
I will note there are other implementations out there as well, such as in
unbound. serve-expired
I agree to review and comment. Note that I am provisionally negative to the
idea itself, and my review may reflect that. Vixie
On March 27, 2017 4:56:58 PM CDT, Dave Lawrence wrote:
>One of the two drafts I wanted to talk about at dnsop today for WG
>adoption was "Serving Stale
One of the two drafts I wanted to talk about at dnsop today for WG
adoption was "Serving Stale Data to Improve DNS Resiliency":
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale/
In short, this describes a method for increasing DNS resiliency by
treating the inability to refresh data
17 matches
Mail list logo