Re: {Blocked Content} I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc2672bis-dname-07.txt

[Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>]

> ... Holding the CNAME will lessen repeated queries, dropping it will mean
> that less, um, ersatz data is held in caches.

theoretically, yes.  but any authority server can tell you that the number
of repeated queries for cacheable information (both positive and negative)
is already so high that TTL=0 CNAME won't make any practical difference.

of course we should design for the ideal, so that if all stupid clients are
fixed, the number of repeated queries won't be artificially held high by a
TTL=0 CNAME design in the DNAME update.  (unless that's the only/best way.)

i just don't want the record to imply that there aren't repeated queries now.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>