Ray Bellis writes:
> I get the impression with DELEG on the horizon that there's a shift
> towards the parent side data being considered more "authoritative" even
> though in protocol terms it explicitly isn't.
Yes and no; there's a bit of nuance to ferret out here. This is part
of the
Willem Toorop writes:
> Should RFC 8767 stale data be ranked differently than fresh data?
> Should EDNS Client Subnet play into ranking?
>
> I like your thinking! Yes, fresh data should replace stale data in
> resolver caches
It's basically A- in your draft's hierarchy, I think, though
I think this document gives an opportunity to explicitly clarify
expectations regarding the NS records either side of the zone cut.
I get the impression with DELEG on the horizon that there's a shift
towards the parent side data being considered more "authoritative" even
though in protocol
Op 06-03-2024 om 22:06 schreef Wessels, Duane:
Hi, some initial thoughts:
RFC 2181 says "Data from a zone transfer, other than glue” but this
draft doesn’t make any exceptions for glue or non-authoritative data
from a zone transfer. Is that intentional?
Well, RFC 2181 had a uniquely broad
Hi, some initial thoughts:
RFC 2181 says "Data from a zone transfer, other than glue” but this draft
doesn’t make any exceptions for glue or non-authoritative data from a zone
transfer. Is that intentional?
Should RFC 8767 stale data be ranked differently than fresh data?
Should EDNS Client
Forwarded Message
Subject: I-D Action: draft-toorop-dnsop-ranking-dns-data-00.txt
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2024 13:12:26 -0800
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Internet-Draft draft-toorop-dnsop-ranking-dns-data-00.txt is now available.
Title: Ranking
