On 26.3.2015 07:26, Paul Vixie wrote:
Evan Hunt wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 05:24:32PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
...
that would be an overspecification. the spec should simply say any
RRset, where the choice of which RRset is implementation-dependent.
some might go for oldest; some
Ted Lemon wrote:
On Mar 26, 2015, at 1:26 AM, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
you make an excellent point. so, the spec might ask for repeatability, but
not specify how that's to be achieved. it's still an information leak since
the preferred type may have timed out of the cache, in
On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:28 PM, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
what we should say in the spec is determinative, and
non-information-leaking, and let implementers scratch their heads about how
to do that. we should not try to invent it here, or specify it in an ietf
document.
I don't see
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 06:33:18PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
what we should say in the spec is determinative, and
non-information-leaking, and let implementers scratch their heads
about how to do that. we should not try to invent it here, or specify
it in an ietf document.
I don't see how
Last night the dumb-idea fairy visited me as I was falling asleep, and
suggested that another way to reduce the impact of ANY queries would be
to pick *one* rrset and return just that. (Probably the numerically
smallest rrtype present at the node, plus RRSIGs if any.)
This avoids poisoning caches
