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 DNSdelegations

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

Sander Steffann sander at steffann.nl
Thu Dec 2 23:25:05 CET 2021

Hi Petr,

> I think lowering both TTLs is a step in right direction, but let me ask provocative question:
> 
> Why not make the TTL _dynamic_, based on time of last change in the RIPE database?

Because explicit is better than implicit. Magically calculated dynamic values rarely match operational expectations :)

Cheers,
Sander

• 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 DNSdelegations

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

[ dns-wg Archives ]