This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/dns-wg@ripe.net/

[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 ]