I am indifferent about what label we stick on this, but perhaps the document
should have a section on implementations?
However, I do feel that the Security Considerations is missing on the risks of
dropping packets, ICMP filtering and dangers of PMTUD.
Also it feels weird to me that the IP_PMTU
On 20.01.2023 12:49, Ondřej Surý wrote:
• UDP responders SHOULD limit response size when UDP responders are located
on small MTU (<1500) networks.
I don't know what this means. And how is this related to the previous recommendation to
limit the response size under "1400".
Hi,
I think t
On Fri Jan 20, 2023 at 6:53 PM UTC, Paul Wouters wrote:
> It seems there should be more discussion which hopefully would lead to
> a converging BCP before moving forward. Hearing from other main
> implementations would be extremely helpful here.
i have always been a fan of ISC's work, but i agree
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Given the long list of things in this document that ISC has thought about and actively
decided not to do, is it a good idea that we call it a "best current practice"?
It seems there should be more discussion which hopefully would lead to
a converging B
Thank you Paul and Kazunori.
The chairs agree that both drafts (glue-is-not-optional and rfc8499bis)
should go to WG Last Call together. We will coordinate this further
with the authors of both documents to move forward with the WGLC.
Best,
-- Suzanne, Tim and Benno
On 20/01/2023 16:34, Pa
> On 20 Jan 2023, at 15:20, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> Given the long list of things in this document that ISC has thought about and
> actively decided not to do, is it a good idea that we call it a "best current
> practice"?
Maybe. Though a BCP should go beyond documenting what BIND9 does.
In
Greetings again. Kazunori and I have just submitted -05 of this draft to
incorporate the consensus from the WG on how to talk about the types of glue.
Please see the diff for the specific wording that was used to reflect the WG
consensus. Note that we now normatively reference
draft-ietf-dnsop-
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 Terminology
Authors : Paul Hoffman
Kazunori Fujiwara
Filename
Given the long list of things in this document that ISC has thought about and
actively decided not to do, is it a good idea that we call it a "best current
practice"?
--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/li
Dear WG and authors,
here's an status of UDP fragmentation mitigations in BIND 9 as of now.
> 3.1. Recommendations for UDP responders
> • UDP responders SHOULD send DNS responses without "Fragment header"
> [RFC8200] on IPv6.
> • UDP responders are RECOMMENDED to set IP "Don't Fragment f
10 matches
Mail list logo
