Jinmei:
> I also found it confusing on my fresh re-read of serve-stale-03 in
> that the "example method" section contains normative descriptions
> using RFC2119 keywords.
You're in good company in that co-author Puneet has voiced the same
opinion.
My own take is that it's appropriate because
At Fri, 1 Mar 2019 15:54:39 -0500,
Dave Lawrence wrote:
> > I'm not sure a standards track document that updates RFC 1034/1035
> > should be recommending a minimum TTL.
>
> As previously noted, we're making no such recommendation and that will
> be clarified. The first definition of "resolution
> On Mar 1, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Dave Lawrence wrote:
>
> Paul Hoffman writes:
>> I'm not sure a standards track document that updates RFC 1034/1035
>> should be recommending a minimum TTL.
>
> As previously noted, we're making no such recommendation and that will
> be clarified.
"Attempts
Paul Hoffman writes:
> I'm not sure a standards track document that updates RFC 1034/1035
> should be recommending a minimum TTL.
As previously noted, we're making no such recommendation and that will
be clarified. The first definition of "resolution recheck timer" in
section 5 does already say
