On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 08:51:43AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>> 1) is addressed by defining a new type(s) rather than using prefixes.
> >
> > While that is correct, and truly, it is trivial to implement, it is not
> > trivial to deploy: too many DNS hosting providers would have to update
> > U
> > On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:30 am, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > > > On 11 Jul 2018, at 3:55 am, Joe Abley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > *cups hand to ear*
> > > >
> > > > Was that the sound of a distant desire to specify use of SRV for
> > > > HTTP?
> >
> > I think there are three main objections.
> >
>
On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 11:58:51AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> One can do something similar in any scripting language.
Sure. The people on this list can, and many others too. Still, all of
us together are a tiny proportion of the users that would need to be
able to.
> So no it isn't hard to us
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 11:27:45AM -0700, william manning wrote:
> You need a better imagination then. mDNS is a crippled DNS implementation
> that was hobbled on purpose. HS was/is an entirely different addressing
> scheme that emerged from project Athena @ MIT. To the extent that when all
>
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 03:32:21PM +0200, David Cake wrote:
> > On 5 Jul 2017, at 10:47 am, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> > i think avoiding icann is a red herring. if the draft in question had
> > done a decent job of exploring the taxa of needs for name resolution
> > outside of the 'normal' topolog
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 11:37:39AM -0500, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 08:09:30AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > Nico Williams wrote:
> > >...
> >
> > ...
> >
> > i know which future i'd rather live in. i also feel in-year pressure
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 08:09:30AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Nico Williams wrote:
> >...
> >
> >I'm well aware that as to clients and servers, deploying new RR types is
> >easy. The hard part is the management backend and UIs. Not all of them
> >allow
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 04:56:37PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <20170707055315.GC3393@localhost>, Nico Williams writes:
> > We've struggled with this in KITTEN WG. Deploying the URI RR type when
> > you're using a hosting service can be anywhere from ann
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:52:36AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <20170706153955.GB3393@localhost>, Nico Williams writes:
> > So new classes will only be useful to extend the IN-class RR type
> > namespace. We won't get there. New RR types can be very diff
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:15:34AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Thursday, July 6, 2017 00:36 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
> wrote:
> > The X.500 and UDDI models were broken because there is no
> > point in putting information into a directory if the service
> > can return it in a service hand
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 01:39:53PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> > - 'A NULL MX Resource Record for Domains that Accept No Mail'
> >as Proposed Standard
When I first saw this and your reply I thought "what the heck is he
talking about, it's so obviously a good idea". Then I read sections 4.3
11 matches
Mail list logo
