Per Benno’s request:
Positive feedback++;
Good document, fits real need, good to go.
Brian
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 16, 2019, at 10:43 AM, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The WGLC date has passed and we think the draft is in good shape. Still
> the chairs would like to see some
Hi all,
The WGLC date has passed and we think the draft is in good shape. Still
the chairs would like to see some comments and feedback. Positive
feedback that the document is ready to go is also fine.
Thanks,
-- Benno
On 31/10/2019 16:47, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> This starts a Working Group L
Tim Wicinski has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-14
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-no-response-issue/
_
The WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-7706bis has finished and their are editorial
comments that
the authors will address shortly. Otherwise the chairs feel the draft is
ready to move forward.
thanks for all reviews
Tim
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 7:49 AM Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Tim Wicinski writes:
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2019, at 1:50 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> PS: I'm also coming to the conclusion that if you think DNAME solves
> your problem, and your problem isn't the arcane IPv6 rDNS renumbering
> for which it was invented, you don't understand DNAME.
As you may recall,
http://mailarchive.ie
John Levine wrote:
>
> PS: I'm also coming to the conclusion that if you think DNAME solves
> your problem, and your problem isn't the arcane IPv6 rDNS renumbering
> for which it was invented, you don't understand DNAME.
We're using it to reduce the number of IPv4 reverse DNS zones, for which
it
Shane Kerr wrote:
> On the other hand, it seems unlikely that any resolver actually sends
> ANY queries to authoritative servers.
This happens when the resolver's cache doesn't have an entry for the name,
so the resolver sends the ANY query to the authoritative servers. It's
rare because ANY que
