Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 09:57:06AM -0700,
> Paul Hoffman wrote
> a message of 98 lines which said:
>
> > >> Passive DNS -- A mechanism to collect large amounts of DNS data
> > >> by storing queries and responses from recursive servers.
> > >
> > > Most passive DNS
On 04/22/2015 02:33 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
[snip].
>> Please propose specific wording for the merge so the WG can see if
>> they like it better.
> Policy-implementing resolver -- A resolver that changes some answers
> it returns based on policy criteria, such as to prevent access to
> mal
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 09:57:06AM -0700,
Paul Hoffman wrote
a message of 98 lines which said:
> The definition in the draft includes ideas from RFC 5625, which
> seems to be the much more common definition of "forwarder" used
> today. However, the WG is free to define this however they want.
Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> Yes. There are differences between the explicit definition for DNS
> forwarder in RFC 2308 and the strongly implied definition in RFC 5625.
The difference here is that RFC 2308 uses "forwarder" to mean the target
of forwarded queries, whereas RFC 5625 is talking about the
> On 20 Apr 2015, at 17:57, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> Yes. There are differences between the explicit definition for DNS forwarder
> in RFC 2308 and the strongly implied definition in RFC 5625. The WG needs to
> decide which definition it prefers, and an explanation of why (because both
> defin
On Apr 20, 2015, at 6:43 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> IMHO, the text can NOT be published with its definition of Forwarder.
>
> The definition of Forwarder is still both confused and
> self-contradictory.
Yes. There are differences between the explicit definition for DNS forwarder in
RFC 23
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 06:48:29AM -0400,
Tim WIcinski wrote
a message of 30 lines which said:
> Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. Remember: This
> draft is not attempting to redefine any definitions, but to collect
> and formalize the definitions which do exist.
>
> Becaus
Greetings,
While we've never had a formal call for adoption, this draft has had a
lot of comments about the contents, but never about the need for this
document. The need has been clear.
The chairs made the move of adopting the document directly, and we're
now opening a Working Group Last C
