Re: [DNSOP] EDNS0 clientID is a wider-internet question

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > It would be nice if there were an RFC to point to that used a method that > didn't include PII. For the use cases of which I am ware, there is no > need to identify individual devices: only policies. What's lacking is a >

Re: [DNSOP] EDNS0 clientID is a wider-internet question

RFC 7217 ("A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)") is sort of relevant. From the introduction of that document, which describes drawbacks of traditional IPv6 SLAAC addresses: o Since the resulting Interface

[DNSOP] Minutes from Thursday Meeting

Thanks again to Mr, Hoffman from keeping copious notes. They are uploaded here: Minutes IETF99: dnsop and I included them below for the time-constrained. Please send any corrections to the chairs. thanks again tim

[DNSOP] Extended errors draft

I asked on the Unbound mailing list if there were any ways to differentiate between DNSSEC-related SERVFAILs and other types of SERVFAILs, and was referred to the extended error draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-extended-error-02. I can't speak to the implementation detail,

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Tony Finch wrote: Peter van Dijk wrote: One could make $GENERATE more efficient without actually implementing the BULK RR, by taking your pattern matching logic and implementing it inside the name server. Andrew Sullivan was right to say that there is an

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Woodworth, John R wrote: > > Wildcards are a good start, or at least they appear so on the surface. > > Unfortunately, the vagueness of their definition and various > implementations of wildcards would make this a poor choice. Do you mean there are problems with

Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

On 22 July 2017 at 17:40, Woodworth, John R wrote: > > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Matthew > Pounsett > > > > > > > On 20 July 2017 at 17:53, John R Levine wrote: > > > > That's why I don't share the fears about BULK:

Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

- Original Message - > From: "John R Levine" > To: "Woodworth, John R" > Cc: "dnsop" > Sent: Saturday, 22 July, 2017 08:33:30 > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS versioning, was The DNSOP WG has placed > draft-woodworth-bulk-rr in