Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> >
> > Wildcards
> >
> > Should the box in section 7 say "positive responses" instead of "negative
> > responses"?
> >
> > If so, there should probably also be a cross-ref to RFC 4035 section 5.3.4
> > and RFC 5155 section 8.8 which both discuss validating positive wildcard
Unfortunately we are no longer in the early days of the Internet AND the
IETF has no business in enforcing compliance with our protocol standards.
That's for the zone operators to do. We are not the dns police. Even Paul
mocapetris has called for more innovation in the dns space. We must not
pr
Dear colleagues,
this is just a refresh to keep the draft going
as we are still waiting for irtf-cfrg-eddsa, but
that looks like it's in IESG Review, so it might
be a good time to have a final look and send the
comments to /me or Robert or curdle WG mailing list.
1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/d
On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 05:36:34PM -,
John Levine wrote
a message of 47 lines which said:
> I hate to bring this up, but we might want to reconsider whether .alt
> is still the best name for this hack.
May be the author of the I-D should change every occurrence of .alt by
TODO-NAME-TO-BE-
I hate to bring this up, but we might want to reconsider whether .alt
is still the best name for this hack.
May be the author of the I-D should change every occurrence of .alt by
TODO-NAME-TO-BE-DISCUSSED-LATER so we can focus on the idea and avoid
discussions about the name?
I'd think we coul
In message
, william manning writes:
>
> Unfortunately we are no longer in the early days of the Internet AND the
> IETF has no business in enforcing compliance with our protocol standards.
> That's for the zone operators to do. We are not the dns police. Even Paul
> mocapetris has called for
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Just a reminder that the WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
> will end later today (barring any stuck issues). The authors appear to
> have addressed all open issues (except JINMEI's last comments). Please
> read the current ver
UI
On Monday, October 10, 2016, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Tim Wicinski > wrote:
>
>>
>> Just a reminder that the WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
>> will end later today (barring any stuck issues). The authors appear to
>> have addressed all open issues
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:56:42AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> If the IETF was setting servers that went and checked DNS servers
> and informed the operators then the IETF would be in the business
> of enforcing protocols. At this stage I don't see the IETF doing
> that nor is this document aski
>Should we treat synthesis as if the cache is pretending to be an
>authoritative server?
>
>e.g. for wildcards and NSEC3, something like,
>
> When synthesizing a wildcard response from its cache, the
> validating resolver MUST include all the records specified in
> RFC 5155 sectio
John Levine wrote:
> >Should we treat synthesis as if the cache is pretending to be an
> >authoritative server?
>
>
> Yes, although it's kind of subtle.
Yep, that's kind of why I am suggesting a more detailed spec but also
trying to leave as much as possible to the existing intricate
documentati
Having read the draft…
How does one distinguish a Empty Non-Terminal NODATA response from an NXDOMAIN
response, solely by looking at the NSEC or NSEC3 records.
There is an attack vector where an RCODE0 can be replaced by RCODE3 while
keeping the rest of the response completely intact, causing
In message , Roy Arends writes:
> Having read the draft
>
> How does one distinguish a Empty Non-Terminal NODATA response from an
> NXDOMAIN response, solely by looking at the NSEC or NSEC3 records.
NSEC: Find the NSEC record that proves that there are no records
at the given name (note all of t
On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:39, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> In message , Roy Arends writes:
>> Having read the draft
>>
>> How does one distinguish a Empty Non-Terminal NODATA response from an
>> NXDOMAIN response, solely by looking at the NSEC or NSEC3 records.
>
> NSEC: Find the NSEC record that pr
In message <0be787cd-3877-48c0-8bf9-3e15f605d...@dnss.ec>, Roy Arends writes:
> On 10 Oct 2016, at 21:39, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >=20
> >=20
> > In message , Roy Arends =
> writes:
> >> Having read the draft
> >>=20
> >> How does one distinguish a Empty Non-Terminal NODATA response from an
> >> NX
On 10/7/16 1:56 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Special Use Names Summary
>
>
> First, thanks to all for a pretty useful discussion. There were a few
> things uncovered which are not in either draft. It does appear that the
> draft-tldr-sutld-ps is the very rough consensus choice as a starting
> p
16 matches
Mail list logo
