Re: [dnsext] perhaps we should reintroduce "resimprove"

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:09:26PM +0000,
 paul vixie <[e-mail]> wrote 
 a message of 34 lines which said:

> remove (B) and section 3, 

Why? It seems fine to me (even if He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named disagrees).

> progress it not as an improvement but as a security and resiliency
> requirement (so, a proposed standard) in the face of the "ghost domain"
> problem.

It seems to me that this draft does not currently address the ghost
domain problem. It mandates revalidation at the parent when the
records expire, but it does not say anything about the rules that
allow an authoritative server to overwrite the old TTL with a new
value, thus preventing expiration.

Would it be a better idea to use this draft as a starting point to
work on the issues proposed by the ghost domains paper? (Replacing >=
by > in the credibility rules and other measures.)
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext