Re: draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-04.txt [Re: [dnsop] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa-00.txt]

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[e-mail]>]

At 08:49 26/03/04, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > Great: I mean in term of explaining - however I am not sure it
> > should not call for a TTO (Time to Obsolecence) to be specified?
>
>This was added just to convey the time frame, that is, "months or
>years" rather than "every hour".  I'll change it to be a bit more
>vague..

Oh! I try to get the text more specific!

What I mean is that if you introduce a new concept in the DNS
affecting the availability/existance of the RRs you should make
ita very precise feature. From what I gather the TTO would be the
delay before non called entry should be discarded. I think the
concept is great as it may really help managers tracing their
own mismanagement.

But :

1. I do not know where it is to be introduced because I do not
     see easily how it may survive a reload (we are talking of the
     master file management). This means an associated base
     keeping the date of the last use and called at loading time.

2. this would pemit a feature I want for a long in the DNS, which
     is temporary names for security/ebusiness purposes. If I set
     a TTO of 15 minutes and a TTL of 5 minutes on a Dynamic
     entry : the name will be valid for 20 minutes maximum on the
     network.

jfc

.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html