[DNSOP] 答复: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-03.txt

2016-05-03 Thread 宋林健
I think the major benefit from this proposal is to make the upper layer(http layer) unaware the DNS data inside. So we do not need to consider the checksum-like mechanism , special authentication for DNS stub, and do keep truncation logic. I accept your idea that a new head filed

[DNSOP] 答复: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-song-dns-wireformat-http-03.txt

2016-05-03 Thread 宋林健
It’s interesting idea. We have not discuss that before. I’m not sure the impact of bad HTTP proxies to this protocol. Anyway it is not free to register a new head filed. I will discuss with co-author about delivering the TCP/UDP massage via other meta format. Thanks for your interest and

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

2016-05-03 Thread 神明達哉
At Mon, 25 Apr 2016 16:50:42 -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote: > This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns > > Current versions of the draft is available here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns/ > > Please review the

Re: [DNSOP] draft-song-dns-wireformat-http

2016-05-03 Thread Paul Vixie
Davey Song wrote: Of all your observations, this one is the trickiest. :( Right now the protocol is clearly based on HTTP/1.1, although we have an implementation that works fine with HTTP/2 since the Go HTTP library supports it (basically)

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

2016-05-03 Thread Howard, Lee
On 5/3/16, 11:14 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" wrote: >On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:03:20PM +, > Howard, Lee wrote > a message of 159 lines which said: > >> If your ISP allows you to run a mail server on the service you buy, > >I think this nicely

Re: [DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-00.txt

2016-05-03 Thread Paul Wouters
On Tue, 3 May 2016, Ray Bellis wrote: another examples are : 1, when querying DNSSEC records for www.example.com , it normally needs querying example.com too for DNSSEC verification. Hmm... Isn't "EDNS chain query" supposed to solve this? Yes. 2, DKIM exmaple in

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

2016-05-03 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:03:20PM +, Howard, Lee wrote a message of 159 lines which said: > If your ISP allows you to run a mail server on the service you buy, I think this nicely summarizes the disagreement. My ISP does not have to "allow" me to do this or that.

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

2016-05-03 Thread Howard, Lee
On 5/3/16, 5:00 AM, "Stephane Bortzmeyer" wrote: >On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 08:59:45PM +, > Howard, Lee wrote > a message of 289 lines which said: > >> Having forward and reverse match isn't BCP (Stephane Bortzmeyer, and >> others) > >No, that was

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

2016-05-03 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 08:59:45PM +, Howard, Lee wrote a message of 289 lines which said: > Having forward and reverse match isn't BCP (Stephane Bortzmeyer, and > others) No, that was not my point. My point was that having a PTR isn't BCP. _If_ there is a PTR,

Re: [DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-00.txt

2016-05-03 Thread Ray Bellis
On 03/05/2016 07:21, Jiankang Yao wrote: > when receiving an email from a...@example.com > , I often would like to visit the website of > www.example.com too when I reply the email. IMHO it would be an incredibly unwise thing for any software

Re: [DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-00.txt

2016-05-03 Thread Jiankang Yao
From: Ray Bellis Date: 2016-04-29 17:38 To: draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions CC: dnsop Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Fw: New Version Notification for draft-yao-dnsop-accompanying-questions-00.txt > I am unconvinced that the ability to specify multiple QNAMEs offers any > benefits and can't think