News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on RFC8482 – Saying Goodbye to ANY. Parent comment

Re:RFC8482 – Saying Goodbye to ANY by anyfoo on Friday March 15, 2019 @07:07PM (#19405170)
Oh my. Multiple heterogenous but interacting caches? Heuristics? And if I understood it correctly, if any of the records you got from ANY are expired, you selectively query for new records from a list of cached types, not using ANY? What if the upstream added a record from another type in the meantime? Why have ANY at all then?

How is any of that "simple"? How do you transition the existing infrastructure to that behavior? Why?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:RFC8482 – Saying Goodbye to ANY by kazinator on Friday March 15, 2019 @07:16PM (#19405222)
> What if the upstream added a record from another type in the meantime?

Then we don't see it for a while until the type list is refreshed; that's the up-to-dateness case that is sacrificed.

> How do you transition the existing infrastructure to that behavior? Why?

If it's an alternative to ALL being rendered inoperative (and someone else is already taking responsibility for that extreme measure), I might have a lot of leeway that adds up to "try it and whatever the hell happens, happens".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:RFC8482 – Saying Goodbye to ANY by anyfoo on Friday March 15, 2019 @08:58PM (#19405710)
No. Don't add complexity, state and attack surface with no reasonable cause.
[ Parent | on HN ]