Petr Špaček writes:
> I will provide the opposite opinion:
> DP bit is not *needed* for EDE.
>
> If I'm proven wrong in future we can specify DP bit in a separate
> document and update EDE RFC.
That's actually what we did Petr (DP is in a separate draft and may or
may not even try for adoption)
All
Draft minutes have been uploaded, with many thanks to Paul Hoffman.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-106-dnsop/
Please take a look and make sure nothing looks incorrect,.
thanks
Tim
DNSOP WG
IETF 106, Singapore
Chairs: Suzanne Woolf, Tim Wicinski, Benno Overeinder
Minutes taken by P
On 21/11/2019 15:37, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> I would suggest adding a requirement to the EDE draft that EDE be
> the last option in OPT
And what if some other future option wants to lay claim to that requirement?
> Then as a client, I can easily detect this situation, because the
> truncation p
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 2:50 AM Daniel Migault wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find our draft that provides recommendations for DNSSEC resolvers
> Operators. Any comment is appreciated!
>
> Yours,
> Daniel
>
> -Original Message-
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019
Hi WG,
Thank you all for that great feed-back I’ve gotten today during and after my
presentation on the use of ISO-3166-1 Alpha-2 User Assigned codes for the
purpose of private space names.
I’m looking forward to discuss the idea here on the list and will incorporate
improvements and new ideas
> On Nov 21, 2019, at 12:18 AM, Brian Dickson
> wrote:
> IMHO, there is *no* reason not to advance .zz
For the record, I think it’s a really bad idea to start re-purposing the ISO
user-assigned codes. Just as bad an idea as if they started re-purposing 1918
space.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 9:35 PM Tim Wicinski via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> 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://datatrack
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 4:19 AM Petr Špaček wrote:
> On 21. 11. 19 9:49, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> > Wes Hardaker writes:
> >
> >>> I think our simplest and most appealing option would be to treat EDE
> >>> exactly like any existing EDNS Option (i.e. set the TC bit).
> >>
> >> For the record, I'm ju
On 21. 11. 19 9:49, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Wes Hardaker writes:
>
>>> I think our simplest and most appealing option would be to treat EDE
>>> exactly like any existing EDNS Option (i.e. set the TC bit).
>>
>> For the record, I'm just fine with this. People that *want* a separate
>> signal should
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 08:32:38 UTC Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 3:54 PM Paul Vixie wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 November 2019 06:54:47 UTC Warren Kumari wrote:
> > can someone who knows the rfc editor please tell them that the reference
> > in this section is incorrect:
>
Wes Hardaker writes:
> > I think our simplest and most appealing option would be to treat EDE
> > exactly like any existing EDNS Option (i.e. set the TC bit).
>
> For the record, I'm just fine with this. People that *want* a separate
> signal should speak up please and voice their reasons why h
> I think our simplest and most appealing option would be to treat EDE
> exactly like any existing EDNS Option (i.e. set the TC bit).
For the record, I'm just fine with this. People that *want* a separate
signal should speak up please and voice their reasons why having just
the TC bit is unaccept
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 3:54 PM Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 21 November 2019 06:54:47 UTC Warren Kumari wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
> >draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-17
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile/
I agree with Jaap (about the principle).
I think it is safe to assume that there will not be a ccTLD
corresponding to an alpha-2 code element that does not form part of
3161-1 ie is available as 'User Assigned'.
I personally find an alpha-3 code element, ie .ZZZ, less confusing to
the casual user
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 3:57 PM Vladimír Čunát
wrote:
> On 11/21/19 8:26 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > for example if ICANN delegates .zzz there will be interesting typo
> attacks possible in this weird private space
>
> In this respect .zz is at least better than .xx which was among the
> suggesti
> On Nov 21, 2019, at 2:37 AM, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>
> To be clear, we are talking only about the case where a response "fits" until
> the EDE is added, after which it exceeds the limit and is truncated. If
> optimizing this situation is important, I would suggest adding a requirement
> to th
16 matches
Mail list logo
