Reply to comment:

Giovane Moura
> I still disagree with the term: first, a resolver does not always talk with an authoritative name server, it may talk to an upstream > resolver a forwarder), and so receive a smaller TTL. There may be many "middleboxes" -- other boxes in between resolver and the client , as you pointed (just like fig 1 in [0] I am not saying the violations were performed by the local resolver. I am only claiming they were violated/changed. Now, to avoid any "cache hit" in any "middlebox" -- ie., shared cache, other resovlers, etc. -- which woudl return me a smaller TTL value -- I ensured that each probe sent a unique query -- see step 3 on section 2. So even if two probes used the same local resolver at the same time, they would have asked for diff records , in the format of $probeID.cachetest.nl > Also, all DNS implementations have an upper bound for TTLs (sometimes configurable, as with BIND and Unbound). Is it a "violation" to cap a one-month TTL (seen in the wild) to one week? "Violation" in this case is changing the value provided by the auth server, in regardless of the intention. I am not implying any judgment on the value change, only a value change. refs: [0] https://www.isi.edu/~johnh/PAPERS/Mueller17a.html