Hi all,
I have a small question in respect to section 4.1 (DNS Server Behavior
/Authoritative servers) and section 6 (SVCB-compatible).
I have to admit that I do not yet fully understand the current draft
(having neglected following the discussion on the draft in the past). So
please forgive
On 21.02.20 14:44, Vladimír Čunát wrote:
On 2/21/20 2:23 PM, Klaus Malorny wrote:
My understanding of the plan is that for fallbacks we'll have what
people are using now, e.g. that http redirect. Perhaps you can
elaborate on why that doesn't seem sufficient.
Hi Vladimir,
simply t
On 21.02.20 13:19, Dan York wrote:
If HTTPSVC can do that, and browser vendors will implement it [1], then that use
case can be satisfied.
Dan
Hi all,
I have to admit that I haven't worked through the HTTPSSVC/SVCB draft in detail,
but while it seems to provide much more functionality than
On 21.02.20 10:08, Benno Overeinder wrote:
I am interested to learn what the problem is that the customer wants to
solve. Quoting from the email from Evan Hunt in this thread: "CNAME at
the apex wasn't really the problem. Getting browsers to display
content from the right CDN server was the pro
Hi,
thanks all for responding, this was very informative for me. The lack of
interest for the ANAME draft is a bit pity. We have some customer requests in
this direction and I was hoping to be able to offer them a standards compliant
solution. So now I have to rethink our strategy.
Regard
Hi all,
I asked myself about the status of the two drafts. I got the impression a little
bit that the svcb/httpsvc draft successfully killed the aname draft, but is now
dying slowly itself. It would be great if somebody could give me some insight
whether the one or the other has still a meas
Hi all,
thanks for answering my recent questions so far, but I have to bother you with
another (maybe stupid?) issue.
I saw that for regular address queries, you moved the ANAME record from the
"answer" section to the "additional" section in the -02 draft. I tried to figure
out why, but di
Hi all,
while still struggling with the basic ANAME processing (as described in my other
mail), I wondered whether with DNSSEC, an authoritative name server MAY, SHOULD
or MUST prove the non-existence of an ANAME record when it receives an A or
query and no sibling ANAME record exists
On 28.05.19 21:14, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
Hi Klaus,
Hi Matthijs,
I provided responses inline.
I too.
On 5/28/19 5:49 PM, Klaus Malorny wrote:
Hi all,
[...]
For authoritative servers that receive A or requests, the address
records shall appear only once: in the answer
Hi all,
I am working on an experimental implementation of ANAMEs in our authoritative
name server software, which shall perform its own ANAME lookup. I am a bit
puzzled what is really expected to be returned for regular address (A/)
queries.
- Is it right that the determined target a
On 14.02.19 11:03, Shane Kerr wrote:
Stephane,
Is there a write-up on this?
Thinking about it naively, a demultiplexer really only needs to say "is there a
non-ASCII character in the first 2 or 3 bytes of a TLS session?".
Hi,
please think of HTTP/2, which is a binary protocol (althoug
On 17.09.18 02:27, Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually having the clients time and fudge in those fields for BADKEY
provides spoofing protection for the unsigned responses. This is especially
important with opportunistic TSIG,which is what TSIG with a WKK will be, as
there is no longer the presumption t
On 14.09.18 00:55, Mark Andrews wrote:
I was testing TSIG with a well known key against TLD servers and got the
following response. Once you get past the bad class field (reported to the
operator) there were a
number of other items:
* the tsig name does not match the request.
* the algorithm
On 22.05.2014 03:18, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Klaus Malorny wrote:
Sure, but I am talking of about 5-20 variants per name, not all that are
combinatorially possible.
The idea is that the registrant simply decides which of the variants he
wants to have included with his original name. Those
On 21.05.2014 13:30, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Klaus Malorny wrote:
Sure, but I am talking of about 5-20 variants per name, not all that are
combinatorially possible.
I'm afraid you don't distinguish "name" and "label".
Anyway, what if you encounter a label wit
On 21.05.2014 12:08, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Klaus Malorny wrote:
please take into account that a CNAME + DNAME, the previously discussed
BNAME or the now discussed ENAME solution is still interesting for
domain name registries that have to deal with (maybe lots of) IDN
variants.
Scalability of
On 21.05.2014 11:52, Ralf Weber wrote:
Moin!
Hi Ralf,
Oh and then came DNAME for redirecting whole domain trees and that might have
been a nice idea if I have a couple of domains and want them all to have the
same data. But I do not know of Registries/Registrars that picked that up. Or
is t
On 21.05.2014 08:09, Mark Andrews wrote:
What's wrong with:
_http._tcp.example.net. SRV ... www.example.net.
Nothing.
Hi,
please take into account that a CNAME + DNAME, the previously discussed BNAME or
the now discussed ENAME solution is still interesting for domain name registr
18 matches
Mail list logo
