[dns-wg] Lower TTLs for NS and DS records in reverse DNS delegations

• Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Lower TTLs for NS and DS records in reverse DNS delegations
• Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Lower TTLs for NS and DS records in reverse DNS delegations

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Peter Koch pk at DENIC.DE
Thu Dec 2 15:57:54 CET 2021

On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 01:11:17PM +0100, Jeroen Massar via dns-wg wrote:

> > Same. I support this, and I also support lowering NS even further, even
> > to 3600.
> 
> Another Aye from me on DS & NS to TTL 3600.

I'm slightly reminded of the solar activity cycle by another instance of
a race to low TTLs, to be followed by another train of thought recommending
high (infrastructure RRSet) TTLs in favour of resilience.

No objection to Anand's proposal at all, but maybe there are limits to committees
finding "optimum" numbers, especially under the impression of a prominent incident.

-Peter

• Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] Lower TTLs for NS and DS records in reverse DNS delegations
• Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] Lower TTLs for NS and DS records in reverse DNS delegations

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ dns-wg Archives ]