On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:28:16PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > Section 3.1, etc.
> >
> > | The TTL of the NSEC RR that is returned MUST be the lesser of the
> > | MINIMUM field of the SOA record and the TTL of the SOA itself.
> > | This matches the definition of the TTL for negative respon
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:22 PM, Tom Pusateri wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>> Yes. I'm using it right now to implement draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay, and
>>> that implement
Dear Ted,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Yes. I'm using it right now to implement draft-ietf-dnssd-mdns-relay, and
> that implementation is working and interoperating. I don't know of another
> independent implementation yet, unfortunately.
Can you elaborate a bit more?
Hi all,
Are there any implementations of this protocol extension?
Kind regards,
Job
-- Forwarded message --
From: The IESG
Date: Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:20 PM
Subject: [DNSOP] Last Call:
(DNS Stateful Operations) to Proposed Standard
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: Tim Wicinski , dnsop@
Dear all,
For what it's worth - all my concerns have been addressed. I believe
the document to be in good shape now and would support a progression
through WG LC. I appreciate the effort the authors have put into
making this an exemplary specification!
Kind regards,
Job
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at
On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 07:07:05PM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> 3/ Section 3 states: "The responses received from queries to resolve
> each of these names would allow us to infer a trust key state of the
> resolution environment.".
> From what I understand, in today&#
Dear Joao,
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:39:56AM +0200, Joao Damas wrote:
> While I do agree with you that having implementations early on is a
> very desirable requirement, though I would disagree with making it a
> hard requirement (see the case of aggressive negative caching and how
> it unfolded
On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 11:05:50AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >> We have also taken the implementation comments posted to the WG
> >> mailing list and collected them in a new section titled
> >> "Implementation Experience” in the light of Suzanne’s request
> >>
> >> So we would like to pass this
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 06:15:49PM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
> We have submitted -12 of this draft which we believe incorperates the
> substantive review comments made during the WG Last Call period that
> were posted to the WG Mailing List.
>
> > Editors: Please take “concern about a description
Dear Warren,
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:37:15AM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> > While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the
> > be explicit to avoid any confusion.
> >
> > This document is
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 at 14:01, Petr Špaček wrote:
> On 6.4.2018 13:18, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:35, tjw ietf wrote:
> >
> >> After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I feel
> >> we're ready to take this to WGLC.
> >>
> >> (We are aware of the two points
Hi all,
While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the be
explicit to avoid any confusion.
This document is *not* ready for publication. There is no implementation
report available for review and consideration.
Should the working group produce an implementation report and de
Dear kskroll sentinel authors, working group,
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:45:18AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
> With the submission of the -11 version of this draft the authors are
> of the view that all WG comments have been discussed, and we think we
> are now ready for a WG Last Call on this docu
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:48 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Related to the current discussion, does anyone have any links to
> implementations of CSYNC?
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dnsop/wiki/implementation_reports
I did the hard work and created an empty page ;-)
__
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> bert hubert wrote:
>>
>> Well to allow the one remaining closed source DNS implementation some room,
>
> authoritative services: Akamai Amazon Cloudflare Dyn Google Verisign
> recursive services: Google OpenDNS Quad9
> COTS: Nominum
Those can
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 09:13:31AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > Finally, with Job Snijders, I am very much in favour of mandating
> > interoperable implementations as a requirement for standards action.
> > There is a whole bunch of reasons for this. For starters, how can we
&
Dear DNSOP,
I'd like to share some pointers from the working group that governs the
BGP protocol, IDR, on requiring implementations before drafts can
advance towards RFC publication. Raising the bar for publication will
take weight off the camel's back.
The IDR policy and rationale is outlined he
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 03:52:00PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 01:17:55PM -0700,
> The IESG wrote
> a message of 42 lines which said:
>
> > The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System
> > Operations WG (dnsop) to consider the following document:
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 06:55:55AM -0400, tjw ietf wrote:
> This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-hunt-dnsop-aname
>
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hunt-dnsop-aname/
>
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by
> DNS
Dear Evan & Authors,
Can you add a RFC 7942 section to this document?
Pending an IANA Early Allocation, I expect these implementations to be
residing in private / beta branches until a DNS RR data type value has
been assigned.
I think it will be beneficial for the working group dialogue to have
20 matches
Mail list logo
