Subject: Re: Re: negative caching support

From: "Marcos Sanz/Denic" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 12:26:17 +0200

On 04.10.2002 02:57 Jim Reid <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "bert" == bert hubert <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>     bert> So this appears to be a good idea. Sadly, DENIC for example
>     bert> demands a 40.000 second SOA minimum which is a bit much for
>     bert> negative caching.

Actually, any value between 180 and 345600 is accepted.

> And anyway, what's stopping someone changing their SOA values after
> DENIC has done their pre-registration check and delegated the zone?

Nothing. That´s the reason why I am a defender of unannounced periodical
checkings..

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