I support adoption because operators are using this spec. I plan to review
and also to encourage a few others who have reviews to contribute.
On 28 October 2014 08:50, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Dear DNSOP WG,
>
> This draft documents the specification, use, and cautions regarding the
> "client-sub
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
This draft documents the specification, use, and cautions regarding the
"client-subnet" EDNS option. Please consider adoption of this draft as a WG
work item.
I have a recollection we already did this call? Because I said I
reluctantly agreed to adop
Warren Kumari:
> We actually have some updates that unfortunately didn't *quite* make
> it in before the cutoff[0].
>
> [0]: Yes, making it in before the cut-off or not making it in before
> the cut-off is a binary, but, well
Please feel free to hurl suitably non-lethal objects at me. It was
suzworldwide> The draft is available here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet/
suzworldwide> Please review to see if you think this document is
suzworldwide> suitable for adoption by DNSOP and comment to the list.
I support this draft as a working group i
I support the adoption of this document in the WG even if it gets significantly
changed during the WG discussion. I will review it as it progresses.
--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Dear DNSOP WG,
>
> This draft documents the specification, use, and cautions regarding the
> "client-subnet" EDNS option. Please consider adoption of this draft as a WG
> work item.
>
> As some of you will remember, this is a successor to
Dear DNSOP WG,
This draft documents the specification, use, and cautions regarding the
"client-subnet" EDNS option. Please consider adoption of this draft as a WG
work item.
As some of you will remember, this is a successor to a draft that was
considered in DNSEXT some time ago and eventually
Warren Kumari wrote:
> >> Outside this list how common are hierarchies more than 4 levels deep
> >> in practice?
>
> Surprisingly enough, not an insignificant number -- but this is
> mitigated by what the queries are (see below)
Large organizations in countries with special-purpose 2LDs easily g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 10/28/2014 05:07 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Registration will open shortly for the Workshop on DNS Future Root
> Service Architecture.
>
>> Location: Hong Kong, HK
>> Date: December 8-9, 2014
>> Hosted by: ISOC-HK
>> Sponsors: ZDNS/BII and CNNIC
>>
This graph is status of DS query increase in JP.
http://member.wide.ad.jp/~fujiwara/dnssec-ipaddress-ratio.png
Ratio of DS queries was 5% or 6% at max, however, it is 3.4% now.
It seems that large scale ISP stopped DNSSEC validation this April.
How do I do about draft-fujiwara-dnsop-ds-query-i
I submitted http://draft-fujiwara-dnsop-unclear-00.txt.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-unclear-00
I would like to collect potential unclear points of DNS protocols.
Is it useful ?
For example, I want clear definitions of "Full-resolver" and "Referrals".
Please comment.
--
Registration will open shortly for the Workshop on DNS Future Root
Service Architecture.
> Location: Hong Kong, HK
> Date: December 8-9, 2014
> Hosted by: ISOC-HK
> Sponsors: ZDNS/BII and CNNIC
> Co-chairs: Warren Kumari and Paul Vixie
This two day workshop will focus on the DNS root service arch
12 matches
Mail list logo
