Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03.txt

[Dave Lawrence <[e-mail]>]

Christopher Morrow writes:
> My point is that the recursive reoslver has no idea why an authoritative
> is unreachable and that doing anything like sending stale records is 
> going to cause unintended problems.

Given the operational benefit that has already been observed in
production with serve-stale, I think it needs more than vague fears of
"is going to cause unintended problems" to argue against it.  If we
let unspecified concerns of possible unintended problems be our
guidance we'd never get anything done around here.