神明達哉 wrote:
At Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:02:33 -0800,
Paul Vixie wrote:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/zRuuXkwmklMHFvl_Qqzn2N0SOGY/?qid=ff8e732c964b76fed3bbf333b89b111f
...i wrote:
therefore a "serve stale" team within IETF-DNSOP was convened, to try to
standardize the methods and
In the SPASM group, we are refining CAA (RFC 6844) based on the changes
that were needed in order to get it passed at the CA/Browser Forum.
There's one sticky bit in particular I'd like input on. Here's the
current language in the BRs:
https://cabforum.org/wp-content/uploads/CA-Browser-Forum-BR-1.
At Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:02:33 -0800,
Paul Vixie wrote:
> > Realistically, I expect virtually everyone will implement 3, given how
> > this kind of feature is sold in the marketing context. ,,,
>
> me too. that's why, in:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/zRuuXkwmklMHFvl_Qqzn2N0SOGY/
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > On Nov 15, 2017, at 00:23, Bob Harold wrote:
> >
> > If I have to add those entries to each zone, I worry that the automated
> DNS
> > appliance that I use might not be
1 something. I also believe it should scale as to the size of the
subscription base in some way. Basically, this should answer the question
of “ given a set of subscribers of size N, a per request failure rate of f,
a retry time of R, how long do you have to wait until P% of the subscribers
have