In article you write:
>https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iex14dfnieq5dfq/AAAsedMLheGdBh6qbwm7tpcAa?dl=0
Overall, looks good. The text in the new section on wildcards is
mildly fractured, looks like a cut and paste error.
___
DNSOP mailing list
Folks,
Since WG LC closed for the two attrleaf drafts yesterday, I've generated
revised versions based on the LC feedback.
I'll submit them as I-Ds when the window opens back up on Monday. In
the interim, here is a link to the revised drafts and diffs between them
and their predecessor
I don't have a strong reason for opposing the proposal, but, frankly,
the need for this wasn't clear to me just by reading the draft. I see
the potential problems with evil parents, but the draft didn't
convince me that it's an important and critical enough to justify a
new protocol extension
Warren Kumari writes:
>
> i *seem* to remember something happening with .de a few years back --
> IIRC, slaves did a zone transfer, ran out of disk and truncated the
> file, and so only had a partial zone file to serve - something like
> 2/3ds of the .de zone "disappeared". A zone checksum
> On 12 Jul 2018, at 18:55, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 4:31 PM Hugo Salgado-Hernández
> wrote:
>>
>> On 22:09 21/06, Shane Kerr wrote:
Dne 1.6.2018 v 12:51 Shane Kerr napsal(a):
Hmm, can you share some details about your experience?
Did you find out
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 4:31 PM Hugo Salgado-Hernández wrote:
>
> On 22:09 21/06, Shane Kerr wrote:
> > > Dne 1.6.2018 v 12:51 Shane Kerr napsal(a):
> > >
> > > Hmm, can you share some details about your experience?
> > > Did you find out when the data corruption took place?
> > > a) network
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 6:06 PM Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Jul 2018, at 13:25, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> >>> Finally, this purports to update RFC7538 which is Informational.
> >>
> >> That's a good point. The WG draft that led to RFC 7538 was marked as
> >> Informational for its entire
On 7/12/2018 3:09 AM, Dick Franks wrote:
So there's now text in attrleaf that explains about hierarchy, top,
highest, and the original presentation convention of right, but
noting that other presentations are possible.
IMO unnecessary.
This will inevitably either overlap or conflict
On 12 July 2018 at 02:58, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/6/2018 8:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
>> Editorial: I would prefer all occurrences of "right-most" to be
>> replaced by "most general", to emphasize that it is not the position
>> which matters, it is the closeness to the root.
>>
>>
