Ray Bellis wrote:
... returning NOTIMP for ANY queries, ...
...
My reading of RFC 1035 is that it would be a perfectly appropriate
response from a server that doesn't support ANY.
the RFC was treated as a general guideline by most implementers, and
once the code for some client or server a
Ray Bellis wrote:
... returning NOTIMP for ANY queries, ...
...
My reading of RFC 1035 is that it would be a perfectly appropriate
response from a server that doesn't support ANY.
the RFC was treated as a general guideline by most implementers, and
once the code for some client or server a
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Mike West wrote:
>
> I poked at the draft a bit over the weekend, reworking it into a
> stand-alone document in https://tools.ietf.org/
> html/draft-west-let-localhost-be-localhost-04. I think it ends up being
> clearer overall, and hopefully y'all agree.
>
This
On 8/7/17, 11:45, "DNSOP on behalf of Ray Bellis" wrote:
>On 07/08/2017 16:44, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
>
>> This was the original proposal,
>> the drawback is that resolvers to not cache the answer, and to make
>> things worse they ask ALL NS addresses for listed domain
>
On 07/08/2017 16:44, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
> This was the original proposal,
> the drawback is that resolvers to not cache the answer, and to make
> things worse they ask ALL NS addresses for listed domain
> thus it acts as a DDoS against the domain in question.
Indeed - I've since conf
This was the original proposal,
the drawback is that resolvers to not cache the answer, and to make things
worse they ask ALL NS addresses for listed domain
thus it acts as a DDoS against the domain in question.
Olafur
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
> Having looked at this a
On 24.7.2017 15:43, 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 ad
Having looked at this a few months ago when one of our partners was
(briefly) returning NOTIMP for ANY queries, I find myself wondering why
this isn't discussed in the draft?
The draft does talk about *new* RCODEs, but not existing ones.
My reading of RFC 1035 is that it would be a perfectly appr
On 2.8.2017 16:56, Edward Lewis wrote:
> On 7/29/17, 06:06, "DNSOP on behalf of Shane Kerr" behalf of sh...@time-travellers.org> wrote:
>
>> ...
>> I'm happy with error codes that are informational, but don't change client
>> behavior. Yes, I realize that users may be tricked, but that's also
On 26.7.2017 12:56, Tony Finch wrote:
> Joe Abley wrote:
>>
>> If anybody else here has thoughts about specific text or violent
>> objections to including QTYPE=RRSIG in general, please let me know (I
>> looked in the mail archive but couldn't find any there).
>
> I think it's helpful to mentio
10 matches
Mail list logo
