In message <951801333.6319.1491827382096.javamail.zim...@nic.cz>,
=?utf-8?Q?Ond=C5=99ej_Sur=C3=BD?= writes:
> Hi there,
>
> I am seeking clarification on NS RRSet completeness
> in AUTHORITY section as we are tackling one particular
> RPL test from Unbound (iter_pcname.rpl).
>
> Imagine a situati
On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 06:32:12PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > Resolvers don't ask for ANAME. They ask for A/, and get an A/
> > answer, along with an ANAME record so they can go directly to the source
> > and get a better answer if they support that.
>
> If these are the premises for A
On 10 Apr 2017, at 7:38, Ralph Droms wrote:
I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08 gives the intended status of
the document as Informational, while it is listed in the datatracker
as "In WG Last Call: Proposed Standard".
There are arguments in favor of each status. The relevant text is in
In article <44ae341f-0424-14c7-2834-656991d40...@bellis.me.uk> you write:
>> Many TLD registries simply don't permit CNAMEs instead of delegations
>> for their customer domains.
>>
>> The only one I've heard of that does is .de
>
>My real point being that the parent / child relationship can have p
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:38 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> Hi all
>
> > A new version of I-D, draft-muks-dnsop-dnssec-sha3-01.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Mukund Sivaraman and posted to the
> > IETF repository.
> >
> > Name: draft-muks-dnsop-dnssec-sha3
> > Revision: 01
I see that draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-08 gives the intended status of the
document as Informational, while it is listed in the datatracker as "In WG Last
Call: Proposed Standard".
There are arguments in favor of each status. The relevant text is in section 5
of RFC 6761:
An IETF "Standards
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
> Here's the new ANAME draft I mentioned last week.
Hey, thanks for this one! I support the attempt to define a record
type that would cover the existing vendor-specific types that
synthesize A/ records in zone apex. If this gets adopted by the
On 3/31/2017 8:52 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:15:45AM -0700,
internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote
a message of 43 lines which said:
Title : DNS Scoped Data Through Global '_Underscore' Naming
of Attribute Leaves
Author : Dave Cr
> On 6 Apr 2017, at 19:42, Bob Harold wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:34 PM, IETF Secretariat
> mailto:ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org>>
> wrote:
>
> The DNSOP WG has placed draft-kristoff-dnsop-dns-tcp-requirements in
> state
> Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
>
>
Hi there,
I am seeking clarification on NS RRSet completeness
in AUTHORITY section as we are tackling one particular
RPL test from Unbound (iter_pcname.rpl).
Imagine a situation where parent (.net/.com NS) gives this glue:
QUESTION
.example.com. IN A
ANSWER
AUTHORITY
example.com. IN NS ns.exampl
Petr,
At 2017-04-07 09:38:05 +0200
Petr Špaček wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 28.3.2017 16:58, 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.
> >
>
On 10/04/2017 11:39, I wrote:
> Many TLD registries simply don't permit CNAMEs instead of delegations
> for their customer domains.
>
> The only one I've heard of that does is .de
My real point being that the parent / child relationship can have policy
rules in place that prevent things that a
On 10/04/2017 11:04, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> Why this is not possible seems obvious to me, but we’ll see what we can
> write.
Many TLD registries simply don't permit CNAMEs instead of delegations
for their customer domains.
The only one I've heard of that does is .de
Ray
On 10 Apr 2017, at 11:29, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 04/07/2017 08:11 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
Title: Address-specific DNS Name Redirection (ANAME)
I think the introduction should discuss why it is not possible to push
the CNAME to the parent zone, replacing the entire zone with an alias.
Hi all
> A new version of I-D, draft-muks-dnsop-dnssec-sha3-01.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Mukund Sivaraman and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name: draft-muks-dnsop-dnssec-sha3
> Revision: 01
> Title:Use of SHA-3 (Keccak) and RSASSA-PSS in DNSSEC
> D
On 04/07/2017 08:11 PM, Evan Hunt wrote:
Title: Address-specific DNS Name Redirection (ANAME)
I think the introduction should discuss why it is not possible to push
the CNAME to the parent zone, replacing the entire zone with an alias.
Section 3 is currently written in such a way th
On 10 Apr 2017, at 1:04, Richard Gibson wrote:
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Peter van Dijk
wrote:
This section calls for limiting the TTL of cached address records to
the
lesser of the ANAME TTL and the TTL of the retrieved address
records, but
section 3 requires servers to follow chaine
17 matches
Mail list logo
