A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 9432
Title: DNS Catalog Zones
Author: P. van Dijk,
L. Peltan,
O. Surý,
W. Toorop,
C.R. Monshouwer,
All
Thanks for all the comments on this draft. While we saw many comments
addressing the contents, and Daniel was very quick to address, the chairs
did not hear consensus in support of moving the draft forward.
We talked about this with our AD, and he agrees with our assessment.
We are going to m
> On 6 Jul 2023, at 21:09, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> The goal to improve DNSSEC adoption is good.
> The goal to improve IPv6 adoptions is good too.
> It looks like here goals contradict (for technical reasons).
> But if you would pay attention that DNS64 is already massively adopted
>I believe Mark is referring to a validating stub (not a full
>service resolver) behind a NAT64/DNS64. If such a stub uses the
>DNS64 as its upstream resolver, it will encounter a variety of
>potential failures with responses that can't be validated because
>the DNS64 passed the
On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 9:40 AM Ted Lemon wrote:
> Mark, I'm not sure we're communicating.
>
> It sounds like you're saying that NAT64 modifies the payload in transit? I
> don't think that's the case. If it doesn't, then a full service resolver
> will be able to validate the responses it gets. It
Mark, I'm not sure we're communicating.
It sounds like you're saying that NAT64 modifies the payload in transit? I
don't think that's the case. If it doesn't, then a full service resolver
will be able to validate the responses it gets. It can then translate them.
Since it is the consumer of the tr
Hi Philip, all,
I agree about your DNS64 comments.
Actually DNS operations are not impacted at all; all what this draft is about
is related to transport. The draft is simply about an application that is
behind a NAT64 and which uses RFC6052 to build IPv4-embeded IPv6 address to
reach an upstr
> Hi all, The goal to
> improve DNSSEC adoption is good. The goal to improve IPv6 adoptions
> is good too. It looks like here goals contradict (for technical
> reasons). But if you would pay attention that DNS64 is already
> massively adopted by *ALL* carriers, Then the harm for DNSSEC is
> alre
Hi all,
The goal to improve DNSSEC adoption is good.
The goal to improve IPv6 adoptions is good too.
It looks like here goals contradict (for technical reasons).
But if you would pay attention that DNS64 is already massively adopted by *ALL*
carriers,
Then the harm for DNSSEC is already done and n
Hi Mark,
Thank you for voicing a clear opinion on this. I hope other people who have
strong opinion on this matter will speak up. Thanks.
XiPeng
-Original Message-
From: v6ops On Behalf Of Mark Andrews
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 3:10 AM
To: Tim Wicinski
Cc: dnsop ; list
Subject
10 matches
Mail list logo
