Re: [DNSOP] Notice to dnsop: doh @ IETF 101

On 3/9/18 16:57, Paul Vixie wrote: so, this leaves out the proxy case described by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http/ it would be great if one document could describe both use cases. I would agree.  The DNSOP chairs wanted to progress this document but

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-muks-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-04.txt

if anybody wants to work on metazones, i encourage it, and would be happy to remain involved if desired. ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-muks-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-04.txt

(speaking not as chair but DNS operator) At the last OARC, my co-worker did a lightning talk on his deployment of MetaZones ( https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/27/session/7/contribution/39/material/slides/0.pdf ) He attempted to contact the authors of the catalog-zones draft (as did I) to talk

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-muks-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-04.txt

Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > We settled on using a zone representation as it used existing zone > transfer protocol (and authorizations) and would involve minimal changes > for both implementations and operations vs. inventing a new protocol. I want to emphasize this point. In my

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-muks-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-04.txt

Hi Jinmei On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:08:37AM -0800, 神明達哉 wrote: > At Sat, 3 Mar 2018 22:07:57 +, > Ray Bellis wrote: > > > > Abstract: This document describes a method for automatic DNS zone > > > provisioning among DNS primary and secondary nameservers by storing > > >