Re: [DNSOP] comments on draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale-00

At Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:15:52 -0400, Dave Lawrence wrote: > > Also, it's not clear to me why the TTL is set to 1 second. Since > > it's actually expired, a zero TTL seems to be a more sensible choice > > here (a similar feature of unbound uses a zero TTL). If there's a > >

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-03.txt

On Jul 11, 2017, at 3:17 AM, Petr Špaček wrote: > I feel that implications from switch to non-RR format are underestimated > and following e-mail attempts to explain why I believe it is a bad idea. > Please accept my apology for such long e-mail. Petr, with all due respect, I

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-03.txt

+1 On July 11, 2017 3:17:57 PM GMT+08:00, "Petr Špaček" wrote: >Hello dnsop, > >reading throught the latest version, I object to the proposed TLV >format. > >I feel that implications from switch to non-RR format are >underestimated >and following e-mail attempts to explain