Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption - draft-tale-dnsop-serve-stale

[Jared Mauch <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 01:29:47PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> if the draft being considered was clear on two points, i'd support adoption.
> 
> first, this feature is controversial, and there is not consensus favouring its 
> implementation, merely its documentation.
> 
> second, the initiator must indicate its intent to use data beyond its TTL, and 
> the responder must assent to this, and that otherwise, including in the 
> default case where such signaling is absent, data shall not be used beyond its 
> TTL.

	Would you see the querying application informing you of intent via 
option code saying "If I'm unable to talk to you once TTL expires, I may serve 
your last known good answer"?

	What would a server then do if this intent were known?  serve some
alternate data, or even return REFUSED?  I could see sending a secure notify
to anyone who requested the QNAME after change, but holding this state may
end up with complexity similar to what's some have seen with ECS.

	- Jared


-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from [e-mail]
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.