On Thu, 7 Mar 2019, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 07/03/2019 16:57, Petr Špaček wrote:
Like this one?
https://dougseven.com/2014/04/17/knightmare-a-devops-cautionary-tale/
Have you perhaps got anything constructive to contribute to the discussion
instead of pure hyperbole?
It is not hyperbole.
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 : Running a Root Server Local to a Resolver
Authors : Warren Kumari
I've read draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-03. In addition to the
high-level draft organization matter I mentioned in another thread,
here are my other comments on this version:
- Section 4:
The definition of TTL in [RFC1035] Sections 3.2.1 and 4.1.3 is
amended to read:
TTL [...] If the
This version of the draft addresses some comments made by Mukund Sivaraman and
Peter Phillipp.
Stephen
> On 7 Mar 2019, at 18:37, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain
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 : Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)
Authors : Francis Dupont
On 4 Mar 2019, at 18:13, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Mar 4, 2019, at 8:27 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
This new draft describes a way for clients and servers to exchange a
limited amount of information where the semantics of that information
are completely unspecified, and therefore determined by
On 07/03/2019 16:57, Petr Špaček wrote:
Like this one?
https://dougseven.com/2014/04/17/knightmare-a-devops-cautionary-tale/
Have you perhaps got anything constructive to contribute to the
discussion instead of pure hyperbole?
:p
Ray
___
Jinmei:
> I also found it confusing on my fresh re-read of serve-stale-03 in
> that the "example method" section contains normative descriptions
> using RFC2119 keywords.
You're in good company in that co-author Puneet has voiced the same
opinion.
My own take is that it's appropriate because
On 05. 03. 19 7:26, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Mark Andrews writes:
>
>>> Yes, and that's where I see a problem: when the software doesn't know
>>> the agreement has been severed.
>>
>> Presumably you won’t get back a server tag and you can log that.
>
> No you may get back a server tag, and you're
