Re: [ietf-provreg] Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted forReview

[James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>]

Title: Re: [ietf-provreg] Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review

>> 
>> My suggestion is suggest that each parent set a reasonable default and
>> a floor on how low the TTL can be set, the child would be allowed to
>> seletct at TTL between these two numbers.
> 
> Possibly, if a reasonable tradeoff can be made here.  Of course, if we have 
> wording about server policy being able to define the floor and ceiling, then 
> technically operators could force it to be a single value, if they so desired.

I would view this as an optional server feature, so if a server does not want to support a client-specified value they don’t have to and should return a 2102 to the client in a similar fashion to the maxSigLife.  If they did support a client-specified value the floor and ceiling values is a server policy decision.  It would be nice if the server did return the server-side default TTL for the DNSSEC resource records to help define the maximum wait period, but again that would be optional.  If the visibility and setting of the ttl will assist in the transfers, than it would be good if the protocol did provide support for it.  I guess I want to understand if others see the benefit of this. 

-- 


JG 

-------------------------------------------------------
James F. Gould
Principal Software Engineer
VeriSign Naming Services
jgould@verisign.com
Direct: 703.948.3271
Mobile: 703.628.7063

 
21345 Ridgetop Circle
LS2-2-1
Dulles, VA 20166

Notice to Recipient:  This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry  Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be  retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written consent of  VeriSign Naming and Directory Services.  If you have received  this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by  telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a  copy.  Thank you.



From: Howard Eland <heland@afilias.info>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:33:42 -0500
To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
Cc: James Gould <jgould@verisign.com>, EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] Re: draft-gould-rfc4310bis-04.txt Submitted for Review

>
> My suggestion is suggest that each parent set a resonable default and
> a floor on how low the TTL can be set, the child would be allowed to
> seletct at TTL between these two numbers.

Possibly, if a reasonable tradeoff can be made here.  Of course, if we have wording about server policy being able to define the floor and ceiling, then technically operators could force it to be a single value, if they so desired.