On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:29:47PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> if the draft being considered was clear on two points, i'd support adoption.
>
> first, this feature is controversial, and there is not consensus favouring
> its
> implementation, merely its documentation.
>
> second, the initiator must indicate its intent to use data beyond its TTL,
> and
> the responder must assent to this, and that otherwise, including in the
> default case where such signaling is absent, data shall not be used beyond
> its
> TTL.
Would you see the querying application informing you of intent via
option code saying "If I'm unable to talk to you once TTL expires, I may serve
your last known good answer"?
What would a server then do if this intent were known? serve some
alternate data, or even return REFUSED? I could see sending a secure notify
to anyone who requested the QNAME after change, but holding this state may
end up with complexity similar to what's some have seen with ECS.
- Jared
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
