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

[Matthew Pounsett]

On 17 November 2016 at 12:56, P Vixie <paul at redbarn.org> wrote:

>
>
> On November 17, 2016 11:17:19 AM GMT+08:00, Matthew Pounsett <
> matt at conundrum.com> wrote:
> >On 17 November 2016 at 12:06, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:
> ...
> >Alternatively, 2136 could have defined an RCODE response that indicates
> >"never send updates here."  The meaning assigned to REFUSED can (and
> >is)
> >interpreted as a refusal to accept that individual update, and so it's
> >perfectly reasonable to assume the next update might be accepted.
>
> That would have been a DOS vector, so, no.
>
> And fair enough.  In the absence of DNSSEC that would definitely have been
a consideration.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/attachments/20161117/05239d31/attachment.html>