[dns-operations] Update Mechanisms (was Re: EDNS and TLDs)

[Matthew Pounsett]

On 17 November 2016 at 12:17, Matthew Pounsett <matt at conundrum.com> wrote:

>
>
> If the MNAME hadn't been overloaded in that way, and instead we'd used a
> new record (I don't think SRV was around yet, but defining things like MX
> was still in vogue.. maybe a UX record?)  then the desire not to receive
> updates could have been encoded in that record, and the TTL set to some
> arbitrarily high value.
>

Or if I had thought for another 30 seconds, absence of the record would
indicate a desire to not receive updates. :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/attachments/20161117/4dbecdb4/attachment.html>