May we quickly settle on a single mailing list for discussing this draft?
I assume dbound is the right choice but don't really care, as long as it
is only one.
Absent objection, I propose that this note be the last one cross-posted.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
On 4/3/2019 12:19 PM, tjw ietf wrote:
I was going to say CAA but that’s 6 years old.
5 was a random number. I was merely meaning 'recent'.
But suggesting CAA in response to my query means that you think RFC 6844
has received widespread -- ie, at scale -- end to end adoption and use.
Yes?
On 03/04/2019 21:19, Jothan Frakes wrote:
>> ... registrar
>> GUIs are perhaps the main barrier for new RRTYPEs ...
>
> s/registrar/DNS Management/
>
> these are often not one in the same - and the only reason I make that
> pedantic distinction is that the frequent situation where
> DNS
> ... registrar
> GUIs are perhaps the main barrier for new RRTYPEs ...
s/registrar/DNS Management/
these are often not one in the same - and the only reason I make that
pedantic distinction is that the frequent situation where
DNS Management != registrar
heavily impedes DNSSEC end-to-end
Far from widely deployed, but the latest ESNI draft introduced a
new RRTYPE from an experimental range, and it "just worked," which
was a pleasant surprise for me. (And is partly why I am happy to
try that route for RDBD.)
"just worked" here meaning: no registrar web-GUI involved, but
whacking
I appreciate the time you invested in this Dave. I definitely like
that we're thinking in terms of how to leverage DNS and its
distributed model vs emulating the hosts.txt situation, and PSL is
essentially a hosts.txt situation.
Some assert there is a benefit to being able to contain some form
On 4/3/2019 11:45 AM, John R Levine wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Dave Crocker wrote:
In my experience, these days getting a new rrtype that doesn't have
extra semantics into DNS servers happens pretty quickly.
Now, about /end to end/ support, not just publishing...
Please provide some
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Dave Crocker wrote:
Section 7's suggestion for using Additional information does not rely on
caching.
Reliance on existing wildcard depends on propagation of a new RR, which
continues to be problematic. There's a reason the Attrleaf table has so many entries...
Now
On 4/3/2019 10:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
In article <3bebe973-0536-96cd-983e-240ba4346...@dcrocker.net> you write:
Comments eagerly sought, of course.
This seems sorta kinda like my dbound draft, only with _tagged TXT
records rather than a new rrtype, and (unless I missed something) a
hope
In article <3bebe973-0536-96cd-983e-240ba4346...@dcrocker.net> you write:
>Comments eagerly sought, of course.
This seems sorta kinda like my dbound draft, only with _tagged TXT
records rather than a new rrtype, and (unless I missed something) a
hope that somehow you can use a yet to be invented
On Mon 01/Apr/2019 09:03:34 +0200 Ian Levy wrote:
> * SPF and ASDP polices can still be published for non-existent domains
>
> Sure, but I can’t predict what non-existent subdomains criminals are going to
> use next. Should I publish a set of TXT records for dougfoster.gov.uk
> uniquely?
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
