On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 07:43:19PM -0700, Joe Abley wrote:
> I think a pragmatic solution needs to work in unsigned zones.
+1, but, an unsigned zone could still return an NSEC-style bitmap. It
wouldn't be provably correct, but neither is any other unsigned response.
You could actually add the bi
Joe Abley wrote:
On Jun 23, 2018, at 22:45, Paul Vixie wrote:
Joe Abley wrote:
I think a pragmatic solution needs to work in unsigned zones.
...
can someone ask the IAB to rule on whether any new internet technology standard
should address unsigned DNS zones, or for that matter, IPv4 ne
Dear DNSOP,
I wrote LB RR that is one of the XNAME RR, include geolocation and
weight load balancing information.
I made PoC resolver and name server and I tried some stub resolver use LB RR.
But no good results.
I think that even if name server and full resolver implement XNAME,
Stub resolver c
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:45 PM Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> Joe Abley wrote:
> > I think a pragmatic solution needs to work in unsigned zones.
> >
> > ...
>
> can someone ask the IAB to rule on whether any new internet technology
> standard should address unsigned DNS zones, or for that matter, IPv4
>
On Jun 23, 2018, at 22:45, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Joe Abley wrote:
>> I think a pragmatic solution needs to work in unsigned zones.
>>
>> ...
>
> can someone ask the IAB to rule on whether any new internet technology
> standard should address unsigned DNS zones, or for that matter, IPv4 networks?
>
Joe Abley wrote:
I think a pragmatic solution needs to work in unsigned zones.
...
can someone ask the IAB to rule on whether any new internet technology
standard should address unsigned DNS zones, or for that matter, IPv4
networks?
"let's move on."
--
P Vixie
Hi Victor,
On Jun 23, 2018, at 17:04, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> [...]
> Yes, but if they have the NSEC bitmap, they can follow the XNAME
> without asking again.
> [...]
> That's already handled by NSEC/NSEC3.
I think a pragmatic solution needs to work in unsigned zones.
The demand for this kind
The document can move forward as-is, but Joe Abley's proposed changes
all look good as well.
--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 07:47:16AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> SIG(0) has miles of potential. Active Directory shows that hosts updating
> their own addresses is useful.
And not just their own addresses. On my TODO list is making DANE
more manageable by (optionally) allowing the holder of a pr
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 07:59:34AM -0700, Joe Abley wrote:
> > Petr Špaček wrote:
> >>
> >> Given that resolver side somehow works already ...
> >> could we standardize this obvious violation of RFC 1035?
> >
> > The feature I would like is CNAME and other data (typically CNAME + MX +
> > TXT), b
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 1:23 PM Ben Schwartz wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:51 AM Shumon Huque wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 12:00 AM Shumon Huque wrote:
>>
>>> In other threads, Erik Nygren suggested that we review the proposed
>>> DNS record for HTTP Alternative Services draft:
>>>
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 1:12 PM Ben Schwartz wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 12:01 AM Shumon Huque wrote:
>
>>
>> It actually has similarities to SRV. But offers more capabilities
>> to web applications, such as http protocol version selection, and
>> has an extensible format for the ALTSVC fie
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 10:26:55PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> So, if I set both to use their (non-default) of SHA256 (and set the same
> secret:-)) do they actually generate compatible cookies?
> I'd guess / assume so, but I haven't tested this...
That's the intention. Mukund recently pointed
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 12:00 AM Shumon Huque wrote:
> In other threads, Erik Nygren suggested that we review the proposed
> DNS record for HTTP Alternative Services draft:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schwartz-httpbis-dns-alt-svc-02
> (You might also want to read RFC7838 for bac
14 matches
Mail list logo
