> On 6 Mar 2023, at 04:20, Peter Thomassen wrote:
>
> 2.) As for the "NXNAME" rrtype, I'd like to propose using rrtype 0 (the NULL
> type). So far it only has meaning for "type covered" fields in signature
> records such as SIG(0) (RFC 2931). There appears to be no collision with
> usage
Hi Benno, all,
I just went over the updated wording in draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-05, and the
paragraph
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-05.html#section-7-2.36
caught my attention.
It uses the term "zone origin", but doesn't say whether it relates to the
parent
It appears that Peter Thomassen said:
>> It will require more process work (potentially blocking) to revise other
>> documents too.
>
>I checked before proposing it, and couldn't find anything that would need
>revision. RFC 1035 calls that type experimental, no
>NULL RRs allowed in zone file,
Jim Reid writes:
> Depends on the definition of DNS traffic Ted. DNS-OARC has many TB of
> pcaps and query logs from the DITL project. Whether that data could be
> good enough to meaningfully measure the incidence of QDCOUNT>1 in the
> real world is anyone’s guess.
If it helps, looking at
It appears that Shumon Huque said:
>2.) As for the "NXNAME" rrtype, I'd like to propose using rrtype 0 ...
>> If I didn't get the math wrong, it would also save 11 bytes in the type
>> bitmap (compared to using the lowest available meta type code, 128),
>> slightly reducing the chance of packet
[ Top-post ]
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:39 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Hi there all,
>
> I was really hoping that it wouldn't come to this, but…
>
>
> We approved draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https on 2022-05-22, and has been stuck
> in MISREF state ever since[0], waiting on draft-ietf-tls-esni - "TLS
Hello authors, chairs and WG,
I was wondering when we'd see an updated version of this document?
The IETF 116 "Internet-Draft submission cut-off" is 2023-03-13 (7 days from
now) - https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/important-dates/
I think that the requested changes were not particularly
On 2023-03-06 03:35, Shumon Huque wrote:
On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 12:20 PM Peter Thomassen wrote:
Hi,
I like this draft. Some thoughts:
1.) Maybe it's worth pointing out that zones using compact denial
SHOULD (MUST?) use NSEC, not NSEC3.
Yes, we could do that. I agree with
On 3/6/23 03:35, Shumon Huque wrote:
2.) As for the "NXNAME" rrtype, I'd like to propose using rrtype 0 (the NULL type). So far it
only has meaning for "type covered" fields in signature records such as SIG(0) (RFC 2931). There
appears to be no collision with usage in the NSEC type
On 2023-03-06 05:00, Paul Vixie wrote:
Peter Thomassen wrote on 2023-03-05 14:56:
(Compact NSEC answers prevent zone enumeration just as well, if not
better.)
that makes it even cooler, and it was already cool. (so long as the
nxdomain signal is not suppressed as in the cloudflare
Hi Warren, & Paul,
Those proposed changes look fine to me, so please can you post an updated
version.
Regards,
Rob
From: Warren Kumari
Sent: 03 March 2023 23:28
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld@ietf.org
Subject: Re: AD review of
11 matches
Mail list logo
