On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 09:57:02AM +1100,
Mark Andrews wrote
a message of 82 lines which said:
> It is a SHOULD not a MUST. Having a existing cache entry is a
> reasonable exception to the SHOULD.
Yes. So, it's already allowed by the draft.
To make it clearer-than-clear, We could add after
>On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:44 PM, 神明達哉
>mailto:jin...@wide.ad.jp>> wrote:
>> So I wonder: should we as wg keep requiring the SHOULD for the already
>> cached subdomains or can we loosen the requirement specifically for
>> that case?
> I've already stated I'm okay with relaxing the SHOULD for the
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:32:24PM -0400, Rob Austein wrote:
> RFC 882, page 10; RFC 1034, page 13.
Well, duh. I've read that at least a dozen times in the past couple
months, and still got it wrong, so I'm a moron (as though we needed
more evidence).
This does suggest a worse structural problem
In message
, =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= writes:
> At Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:41:36 +0100,
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> > > > you have to do the "rm -rf $qname" when you receive the nxdomain.
> > >
> > > The draft says you have to do this, yes.
> >
> > No, it does not. draft-vixie-dnsext-resi
> (so, ted, we appear to agree after all.)
Sweet!
Sorry for the excessive use of vernacular... :)
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On 3/19/16 4:53 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 06:44:44PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
>> responses within the UDP sizes.The class field might have been a useful
>> way to do that, especially for things related to keys and signatures.
>
> There are lots of things the cla
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 06:44:44PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
responses within the UDP sizes.The class field might have been a useful
way to do that, especially for things related to keys and signatures.
There are lots of things the class field _might_ have been
In message <20160317161708.gb3...@mx2.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:06:42AM -0400, Rob Austein wrote:
>
> > off, so we never did implement this in JEEVES or CHIVES. Symbolics
> > may have gotten as far as using CH A RRs as one of the many inputs to
> > their N
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 06:44:44PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
> responses within the UDP sizes.The class field might have been a useful
> way to do that, especially for things related to keys and signatures.
There are lots of things the class field _might_ have been useful for.
What I've be
At Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:21:06 +, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> Though IIRC, a handful of universities dabbled with Hesiod in the
> late 80s or theresabouts and that used the Chaosnet Class. That
> stuff should be long dead and buried by now.
No, that was yet another class, HS.
Hesiod was an MIT Project
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:06:42AM -0400, Rob Austein wrote:
> off, so we never did implement this in JEEVES or CHIVES. Symbolics
> may have gotten as far as using CH A RRs as one of the many inputs to
> their Namespace system, but that was pretty late in their corporate
> life cycle, so I doubt
[[ Dropping CURDLE because these discussions should only be in one WG ]]
On 19 Mar 2016, at 15:43, Paul Wouters wrote:
Hi,
there was an interest in deprecating some DNSSEC related algorithms.
Ondrey and I wrote a draft that tries to introduce and depricate
DNSSEC algorithms similar to how it h
Hi,
there was an interest in deprecating some DNSSEC related algorithms.
Ondrey and I wrote a draft that tries to introduce and depricate
DNSSEC algorithms similar to how it has been done for IKE in RFC4307
and 4307bis:
Comments, feedback would be great :)
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wou
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 02:14:38PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> No, the problem was that rules for name matching are independent
> of the class.
Yes, that's a much better way of putting the thrust of the argument
I'm tring to make. When stated like that, it's obvious that the
position is not
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 09:57:15 +0100
Jakob Schlyter wrote:
> At this point, we're seeking more public comments - on this mailing
> list (unless the chairs disapproves), on the our issue tracker [4] or
> via email to the authors.
Hello Jakob and Patrik. Some comments as requested.
The introduction
At Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:41:36 +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > > you have to do the "rm -rf $qname" when you receive the nxdomain.
> >
> > The draft says you have to do this, yes.
>
> No, it does not. draft-vixie-dnsext-resimprove-00 did but
> draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-01 does not. You m
Hi,
Ralph and I would like to draw your attention to the following WGLC happening
in the dnssd WG. We’ve already had some good comments from dnsop participants
which have helped steer the draft to its current state, but we would welcome
any further comments as described below.
Best wishes,
Tim
Ted Lemon wrote:
(so, ted, we appear to agree after all.)
Sweet!
to be clear, we disagree that the flat hash nature of some recursive
servers is a good enough reason to not say SHOULD here. our agreement on
not saying SHOULD is a coincidence. as a clarification, i'm sure that
this docume
On 19 Mar 2016, at 10:51, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the
IETF.
Title : Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming
Queries
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.
Title : Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries
Authors : Peter Koch
Mat
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:44 PM, 神明達哉 wrote:
>
>
> So I wonder: should we as wg keep requiring the SHOULD for the already
> cached subdomains or can we loosen the requirement specifically for
> that case?
>
I've already stated I'm okay with relaxing the SHOULD for the case of
already
cached subdo
In message <20160316235134.gi1...@mx2.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:53:57PM -, John Levine wrote:
> > >Since 1034 says that A in CH is "a domain name followed by a 16 bit
> > >octal Chaos address," but 882 sais "it might have the phone number of
> > >the ho
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message
> ,
> =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= writes:
> >
> > In my understanding the latest major concern is about the first
> > paragraph of Section 2:
> >
> >When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives a response NXDOMAIN,
> >it SHOULD store it in its cache a
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:50:55AM +1000,
George Michaelson wrote
a message of 84 lines which said:
> How about if under load, a cache is permitted to convert NXDOMAIN
> ttl to 1/nth of the apparent ttl, based on some understood algorithm
> which relates to a load threshold?
IMHO, it is alrea
Tony Finch wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message,
=?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= writes:
In my understanding the latest major concern is about the first
paragraph of Section 2:
When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives a response NXDOMAIN,
it SHOULD store it in its cache and al
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:04:45AM +, Tony Finch wrote:
> By that argument, DNS names should be reversed to big-endian order.
When you try to explain to novices that the DNS matches going down the
tree, label by label, and that the top-most label is at the end, you
immediately get a question a
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.
Title : Aggressive use of NSEC/NSEC3
Authors : Kazunori Fujiwara
Akira Kato
Mark,
At 2016-03-18 07:33:37 +1100
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <20160317161708.gb3...@mx2.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:06:42AM -0400, Rob Austein wrote:
> >
> > > off, so we never did implement this in JEEVES or CHIVES. Symbolics
> > > may have got
At Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:24:57 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <20160316235134.gi1...@mx2.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> >
> > I'm apparently having a hard time reading this month :-/ But your
> > point makes the problem yet worse, since there's no sense that in
> > the CS net class
Ted Lemon wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:44 PM, 神明達哉
> >mailto:jin...@wide.ad.jp>> wrote:
> >> So I wonder: should we as wg keep requiring the SHOULD for the already
> >> cached subdomains or can we loosen the requirement specifically for
> >> that case?
>
> > I've already stated I'm okay wi
Shane Kerr wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
There is nothing stopping a second class working. Absolutely
nothing. You just have to want to set up a parallel heirarchy which
does not have to be complete or maintain a lot more top of namespaces.
what's stopping a second $class from working is STD
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:23:55PM +,
Ted Lemon wrote
a message of 8 lines which said:
> > you have to do the "rm -rf $qname" when you receive the nxdomain.
>
> The draft says you have to do this, yes.
No, it does not. draft-vixie-dnsext-resimprove-00 did but
draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-c
> On 17 Mar 2016, at 04:06, Rob Austein wrote:
>
> MIT's Chaosnet ended up sticking with host tables until we shut it
> off, so we never did implement this in JEEVES or CHIVES. Symbolics
> may have gotten as far as using CH A RRs as one of the many inputs to
> their Namespace system, but that w
>what's stopping a second $class from working is STD 13, half of which
>says that zones and rrsets span classes, and half of which says that
>each class has its own zone cut hierarchy. we would have to decide, and
>revise.
If we spent a year arguing about what STD 13 should really have said
abo
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> When you try to explain to novices that the DNS matches going down the
> tree, label by label, and that the top-most label is at the end, you
> immediately get a question as to why the labels are in the wrong
> order.
Like postal addresses :-)
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.fin
On Mar 18, 2016, at 3:10 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Shane Kerr wrote:
>> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>>> Just because we can't think of a good way to use class today is not
>>> a good reason to shut down the registry. It really doesn't cost
>>> to maintain a registry that is not being actively updated
With respect to
"ptr names of NS addresses should match the associated A/ names"
you might want to
a) avoid or modify the term "ptr names", since there is nothing about the PTR
record type which *restricts* it to the reverse-mapping function, and
b) disclaim the recommendation as only a sof
i've been a bit anxious about ted's use of the word "normative", so i
looked it up:
adjective
1. of or relating to a norm, especially an assumed norm regarded as
the standard of correctness in behavior, speech, writing, etc.
2. tending or attempting to establish such a norm, especially by the
p
38 matches
Mail list logo
