Hello,
Sorry for the long delay. I've been overwhelmed by some other things...
At Sat, 29 Mar 2008 00:46:57 -0400,
Brian Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a meta (and most substantial) level, this version still doesn't
answer the fundamental question I asked a year ago: why *should* one
At Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:45:00 +0100,
Peter Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in accordance with the roadmap posted the other day, this is to initiate
a working group last call on
Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt
At Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:45:00 +0100,
Peter Koch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in accordance with the roadmap posted the other day, this is to initiate
a working group last call on
Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-06.txt
At Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:08:23 -0400 (EDT),
Paul Wouters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think this definition is 100% appropriate. Consider the case
where a PTR RR is not provided for reversed-ip4-address.in-addr.arpa
but some other type of RR (e.g. TXT) is. Then the response to the PTR
At Tue, 5 Jun 2007 08:23:52 -0400,
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Title : Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
Author(s) : D. Senie, A. Sullivan
Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-03.txt
Pages
At Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:47:08 +0200,
Roy Arends [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
During the last meeting, Kurtis Lindquist asked an interesting
question. He asked if anyone had a good explanation for the amount of
requests for the now experimental type A6 Resource Record. This exact
question was
201 - 206 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
