From: fujiwara
Date: 2016-07-06 17:09
To: dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed
draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
>* My idea
> I prefer multiple query sections (with some restrictions)
> and merged answers.
> multiple query
In message
, Warren Kumari writes:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:35 PM, John Heidemann wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 12:21:58 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> >>Warren Kumari writes:
> >>
> >>> The
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:35 PM, John Heidemann wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 12:21:58 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>Warren Kumari writes:
>>
>>> The multiple query example, and multiple TYPEs are interesting, but
>>> solves a different problem
>>
>>Exactly. IMHO,
I suspected as much, but it would be good to come up with some language
that says what you intend and gives a TCP connection as an example. I'm
not entirely convinced that DNS cookie is a bad use case for this... :)
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Ray Bellis wrote:
> On
On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 12:21:58 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>Warren Kumari writes:
>
>> The multiple query example, and multiple TYPEs are interesting, but
>> solves a different problem
>
>Exactly. IMHO, we really need both solutions:
>
>1) the ability to ask multiple questions
On 06/07/2016 23:28, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Hm, you seem to have left out a definition of what a "session" is. Do
> you mean a TCP connection? Are you referring to something that's
> already defined in a document that I have, lamentably, not read? (In
> which case, a reference would be helpful).
Hm, you seem to have left out a definition of what a "session" is. Do you
mean a TCP connection? Are you referring to something that's already
defined in a document that I have, lamentably, not read? (In which case, a
reference would be helpful).
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Ray Bellis
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
I've just submitted this draft, which resulted from discussions in
Buenos Aires related to issues with using EDNS for persistent signalling
(c.f. RFC 7828), and also from an overlap with draft-ietf-dnssd-push and
its (mis-)use of the edns-tcp-keepalive option.
The intention here is to split out
fujiw...@jprs.co.jp writes:
> Using unstructured data (TXT format) is not good.
Thanks for the feedback on that. I have wondered heavily on that
topic. It was originally written as a text format, and we have a lot of
other cases where such text parsing exists (SPF being an example). As
the
Paul,
At 2016-07-06 07:34:03 -0700
"Paul Hoffman" wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2016, at 3:54, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
> > On 06/07/2016 10:09, fujiw...@jprs.co.jp wrote:
> >> * My idea
> >>
> >> I prefer multiple query sections (with some restrictions)
> >> and merged answers.
>
Warren Kumari writes:
> The multiple query example, and multiple TYPEs are interesting, but
> solves a different problem
Exactly. IMHO, we really need both solutions:
1) the ability to ask multiple questions
2) the ability for a server to respond with authoritative answers
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
DNSOP members,
FYI, we've got 20+ people gathering at the IETF 96 Hackathon on Saturday and
Sunday, July 16-17, in Berlin to work on various "DNS / DNSSEC / DPRIVE / DANE"
projects.
Anyone else who is around on the weekend is welcome to join us.
There are some projects that could use some
On 6 Jul 2016, at 3:54, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 06/07/2016 10:09, fujiw...@jprs.co.jp wrote:
* My idea
I prefer multiple query sections (with some restrictions)
and merged answers.
multiple query examples may be
NAME A + NAME + MX
NAME A + NAME + _443._tcp.NAME TLSA
On 06/07/2016 10:09, fujiw...@jprs.co.jp wrote:
> We need summaries of previous discussions,
> and need to consider why many idea stopped.
>
> * For the draft,
>
> Using unstructured data (TXT format) is not good.
>
> I agree query name restriction (Additional records MUST be leaf
>
> From: IETF Secretariat
> The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state
> Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
>
> The document is available at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses/
17 matches
Mail list logo