> On 7 Aug 2020, at 11:54, Brian Dickson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 4:11 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> What benefit is there in changing this now? Moving the SVBC chain (graph
> actually) to the answer section. I know I can follow a graph much easier in
> the additional secti
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 01:04:22AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 23:11:34 UTC Michael De Roover wrote:
>
> i borrowed the initiator/responder terminology from iSCSI, and it seems
> intuitive to me. this isn't a client/server situation, because a given host
> might be both a
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 7:13 PM Ben Schwartz wrote:
> Brian,
>
> I think arguing about the strength of the analogies to CNAME (Answer) vs
> SRV (Additional) is going to be a slow path to consensus. Apart from that
> analogy, I'm not sure I understand your motivating use case. Could you
> write a
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 4:11 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> What benefit is there in changing this now? Moving the SVBC chain (graph
> actually) to the answer section. I know I can follow a graph much easier
> in the additional section than I can in the answer section with simple
> depth limited r
No. thats good and clear. Priming is not just the concept of being
correct, its specifically following a mandated in-band mechanism. It
is a standard, and the bis requirements are not just "arrive at the
state, don't care how" they are "arrive at the state by following this
specific procedure" -oth
On Aug 6, 2020, at 3:32 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
>
> If I (insanely) ran a totally manual, out of band process to
> periodically canvas the space and injected the knowns into the model
> of "root" for my resolver, would I be able to say I am primed?
Not by the standard, no. RFC 8109 was pass
> On 7 Aug 2020, at 04:03, Brian Dickson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 6:22 AM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> I really don’t know how this thread got started with clear and unambiguous
> instructions to add all the records to the additional section.
>
> The possibility of changing wha
If I (insanely) ran a totally manual, out of band process to
periodically canvas the space and injected the knowns into the model
of "root" for my resolver, would I be able to say I am primed?
I am trying to get to the point that the "how" part is only exemplary,
explanatory. The requirement is th
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 6:22 AM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> I really don’t know how this thread got started with clear and unambiguous
> instructions to add all the records to the additional section.
>
The possibility of changing what is specified in the draft, was what
started this thread.
Your re
On 16:55 30/07, Patrick Mevzek wrote:
>
> Only if you take the "hosts as objects" case (where any hosts to be used as
> to be provision like a domain but by just providing, in some cases, some IP
> addresses), which is only one of the two, the other being "hosts as
> attributes (of a domain object
On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:08 AM, Andrew McConachie wrote:
>
> What does it mean for a resolver to be primed, or for a resolver to not be
> primed? For example, is a resolver considered primed only if it has all root
> server names and IP addresses? 50%? At least 1?
Excellent questions, two that the
> On 6 Aug 2020, at 20:28, Pieter Lexis wrote:
>
> On 8/5/20 11:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> On 6 Aug 2020, at 04:51, Pieter Lexis wrote:
>>> On 8/5/20 8:03 PM, Brian Dickson wrote:
(I am not sure of the question/issue of including the SOA, or where that
would go, but I'll defer to
Dear Peter, Matt and Paul,
What does it mean for a resolver to be primed, or for a resolver to not
be primed? For example, is a resolver considered primed only if it has
all root server names and IP addresses? 50%? At least 1?
Priming is the act of finding the list of root servers from a
On 8/5/20 11:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> On 6 Aug 2020, at 04:51, Pieter Lexis wrote:
>> On 8/5/20 8:03 PM, Brian Dickson wrote:
>>> (I am not sure of the question/issue of including the SOA, or where that
>>> would go, but I'll defer to anyone who knows or has an opinion. My gut
>>> says, do wh
> From: Tony Finch
> I've had a look through and I have a few comments.
Thanks.
> Regarding smallest MTUs, I understand from Geoff Huston that it's common
> for IPv6 breakage to start at 1281 bytes.
Then, without path MTU discovery, IPv6 default path MTU value should
equal to the IPv6 minimum l
15 matches
Mail list logo
