Suzanne Woolf has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-11
as Best Current Practice on behalf of the DNSOP working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/
___
Bob
Looks like a typo. That has been there for a bit.
Tim
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 12:11 PM wrote:
>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name
> On Jul 23, 2018, at 1:47 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> The messages on this thread seem to alternate between this being a zone hash
> and a zone signature. There is a pretty large difference between the
> requirements and uses for each.
Thanks for pointing this out. On the chance that someo
The messages on this thread seem to alternate between this being a zone
hash and a zone signature. There is a pretty large difference between
the requirements and uses for each.
--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.or
I wouldn't be opposed to this in principle -- say an RR count field.
For this to be useful in an unsigned zone then all you need is for the ZONEMD
(with RR count field) to be received early in the AXFR. If it is at the end
then this field doesn't help.
For a signed zone, we'd have to think a
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 12:11 PM wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the
> IETF.
>
> Title : DNS Scoped Data Through "Underscore" Naming of
> Attribute
The ZONEMD record should contain a size indicator for the zone,
something that allows a receiver to stop downloading if it is clear
that the served zone is too large. Otherwise, the receiver has to
download the entire zone before it can determine that the hash does
not match.
On 07/22/2018 12:12 AM, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>> Someone pointed out to me that since ZONEMD is meta-data we don't really
>> expect it to be queried normally, and a TTL of 0 is a reasonable default.
> I recall a story about some resolver (Google Public DNS perhaps?) applying
> the lowest TTL per
