%% You should probably cite rfc9520 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-02, number = {draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures-02}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures/02/}, author = {Duane Wessels and William Carroll and Matthew Thomas}, title = {{Negative Caching of DNS Resolution Failures}}, pagetotal = 15, year = 2023, month = mar, day = 10, abstract = {In the DNS, resolvers employ caching to reduce both latency for end users and load on authoritative name servers. The process of resolution may result in one of three types of responses: (1) a response containing the requested data; (2) a response indicating the requested data does not exist; or (3) a non-response due to a resolution failure in which the resolver does not receive any useful information regarding the data's existence. This document concerns itself only with the third type. RFC 2308 specifies requirements for DNS negative caching. There, caching of type (1) and (2) responses is mandatory and caching of type (3) responses is optional. This document updates RFC 2308 to require negative caching for DNS resolution failures.}, }