[DNSOP] Setting the AD bit in the query changes whether you get the AD bit in the response?

Greetings again. While doing some testing, I came across something that is both consistent across implementations but that I do not find in RFC 4033, 4034, or 4035. If a query for a properly-signed zone is sent to BIND-as-recursor, Unbound, or Google DNS, and the AD bit in the request is set

Re: [DNSOP] Setting the AD bit in the query changes whether you get the AD bit in the response?

On 7 February 2016 at 00:36, Paul Hoffman wrote: [snip] > I can't find anywhere in 403[3:5] that says that the AD bit in the request > means anything. Did I miss that? Or is it specified in a different RFC? > > RFC6840 5.7. Setting the AD Bit on Queries The semantics

Re: [DNSOP] Setting the AD bit in the query changes whether you get the AD bit in the response?

On 6 Feb 2016, at 16:41, Shumon Huque wrote: On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 7:36 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: Greetings again. While doing some testing, I came across something that is both consistent across implementations but that I do not find in RFC 4033, 4034, or 4035. If a

Re: [DNSOP] Setting the AD bit in the query changes whether you get the AD bit in the response?

On 7 February 2016 at 00:36, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Greetings again. While doing some testing, I came across something that is > both consistent across implementations but that I do not find in RFC 4033, > 4034, or 4035. If a query for a properly-signed zone is sent to >

[DNSOP] New Non-WG Mailing List: Bundled-domain-names -- Discussion of"bundled domain names"

Dear all, There is a New Non-WG Mailing List: Bundled-domain-names -- Discussion of"bundled domain names". Welcome to join this list for a discussion. To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bundled-domain-names Thanks. Jiankang Yao 发件人: "IETF