With my implementor’s hat on, I think this is wrong approach. It (again) adds a complexity to the resolvers and yet again based (mostly) on isolated incident. I really don’t want yet another “serve-stale” in the resolvers. I have to yet see an evidence that serve-stale has helped anything since the original incident, but now every resolver has to have it because people want it.
And operationally, it will just pamper over the issue which might then go unnoticed for longer period of time rather than being fixed right away. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> (He/Him) > On 18. 7. 2023, at 20:38, Gavin McCullagh <gmccull...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd like to reach out to NLNet about changing Unbound to do this, so I want > to make sure people have a chance to disagree. Feel free to voice your > disagreement (and reasons) here if you do. _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
