Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

Bob Harold wrote: > > ... > > Section 4 includes: > "1. A DNS responder may choose to search for an owner name that > matches the QNAME and, if that name owns multiple RRs, return just one > of them." > > I think "RRs" should be "RRSets", as in section 5. strong +1. -- Paul Vixie

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

On 13 Oct 2015, at 13:30, Bob Harold wrote: > In general, the draft looks good to me. Minor changes suggested: > > Section 4 includes: > "1. A DNS responder may choose to search for an owner name that matches > the QNAME and, if that name owns multiple RRs, return just one of them." > > I

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

> >> A new version of I-D, draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Joe Abley and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Name: draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any >> Revision: 01 >> Title: Providing Minimal-Sized Responses to DNS Queries with

[DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt (fwd)

This butchering of RFC 2317 is in response to a couple of things: Firstly, Petr Spacek's important observation that some reverse DNS UPDATE agents are not compatible with RFC 2317. There was some discussion about whether Petr's draft imposed the wrong requirements on too many UPDATE clients,

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

Hi Joe, I think you need some more text in the description of pick-one-rrset, something like: A DNS responder which receives an ANY query MAY decline to provide a complete response, and MAY instead choose to return only one of the the RRsets present at the node specified in QNAME, and the

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

Belated thought: In the text about synthesized responses, I think you should specifically mention that if the responder would normally have returned a delegation, a CNAME, a DNAME, or an NXDOMAIN, then it MUST still do so. That's implied by the final paragraph of section 5, but IMHO it ought to

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt (fwd)

Bob Harold wrote: > Thanks for reading the draft! > When I first read the last paragraph of section 8, I was confused by > "delegate the reverse DNS as usual" so I am hoping that it can be reworded > somehow. Yes, I can see that might be confusing. I think I meant any kind

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:10:39PM +0100, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote: > Having DNAME and NS below a zone apex is non-sensical as both are > "delegation records" i.e. > NS says where to find more specific name, > DNAME how to write a more specific name to another name. It's legal, though. > NS and

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt (fwd)

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > This butchering of RFC 2317 is in response to a couple of things: > > Firstly, Petr Spacek's important observation that some reverse DNS UPDATE > agents are not compatible with RFC 2317. There was some discussion about > whether

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-jabley-dnsop-refuse-any-01.txt

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Evan Hunt wrote: > Hi Joe, > > I think you need some more text in the description of pick-one-rrset, > something like: > > > A DNS responder which receives an ANY query MAY decline to provide > a complete response, and MAY instead choose to

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt (fwd)

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:20:50 +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > > The first-last convention has the minor advantage of accommodating > non-CIDR delegations or perversely-fragmented CIDR ones such as /26, 2x/26, /26, with a single organization responsible for the middle pair of /26, and otherwise

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt (fwd)

In message , "Niall O'Reilly" writes: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:20:50 +0100, > Tony Finch wrote: > > > > The first-last convention has the minor advantage of accommodating > > non-CIDR delegations > > or perversely-fragmented CIDR ones such as /26, 2x/26,

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00.txt (fwd)

Niall O'Reilly wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:20:50 +0100, > Tony Finch wrote: >> The first-last convention has the minor advantage of accommodating >> non-CIDR delegations > > or perversely-fragmented CIDR ones such as /26, 2x/26, /26, with > a single organization responsible for the