On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 1:35 PM Ben Schwartz <bem...@google.com> wrote:
> For now, I think it's better to keep the current guidance, in order to > minimize the risk of disruptions as these new RR types begin to be deployed. > I have a small favor to ask. Could you try to "sell" the guidance from the hypothetical perspective of it not having been part of the draft? I.e. if it was not already in the draft, and you were proposing the fallback (after successful AliasMode response), is there a short pitch that makes it compelling? Consider also that there are roughly 3 million resolvers (with vastly varying client bases), hundreds of millions of zones, and billions of clients. The cross product is probably sparse, but definitely not super sparse. There is no sharing of information between clients, and they are all implementing the logic from local knowledge only, correct? How does this scale if a large proportion of fallback lookups don't/can't result in success if the primary lookup fails? On the client, on the resolver, on the authority server, on the apex web server (at the fallback address), on the CDN? Thanks, Brian
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
