-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
-Original Message-
From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
David Conrad
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Review of draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00
As far as I can tell, Comcast's network and their recursive
Livingood, Jason wrote:
TLDs, including your own zones. This is indeed not just Site Finder
all over again - it's far worse, and breaks far more applications than
Site Finder did.
Please do send me that list of applications. I would very much like to
describe these use cases in the
On 16 Jul 2009, at 13:32, Livingood, Jason wrote:
Please do send me that list of applications. I would very much like
to
describe these use cases in the next version of the draft.
Yet another example. Many mail servers (including mine) reject SMTP
connections from hosts that don't have
At 9:15 AM +0200 7/16/09, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 01:59:46PM +0200,
Roy Arends r...@dnss.ec wrote
a message of 33 lines which said:
SSAC's Report on DNS Response Modification
http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac032.pdf
Indeed. Good document. There is no
At 8:16 AM -0400 7/16/09, Livingood, Jason wrote:
I'll speak for my parents here: a DNS resolver that reduces the chance that
they'll get a drive-by malware
infection is something they would happily use. Having said that, a DNS
resolver that gives them a page of
search results instead of
Along with these good suggestions, the next draft should include a
brief description of why the desired behavior (as seen by the user) is
better performed through DNS tricks than through HTTP tricks.
John
On 2009Jul17, at 12:04 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 8:16 AM -0400 7/16/09, Livingood,
Jason, et al,
This note suggests changes in both style and detail in
draft-livingood-dns-redirect-00. All of the points made here have been made or
suggested by others in this thread; my intent is to underscore and elaborate on
those points, rather than to challenge development and publication
