Peace,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, 5:17 AM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2020, at 6:07 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> > To not adopt this means, the implementers could easily pick their own
>
> This seems unlikely. If they step on unallocated code points, few
> implementers will go along with that
Peace,
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 8:31 PM Eric Rescorla wrote:
> My reasoning is that (as above) these algorithms are generally of
> low interest and that requiring community review for code point
> registration has the result of consuming quite scarce resources
> in the service of making the
Peace,
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 8:39 PM Daniel Migault wrote:
> To my perspective, holding code point allocation is likely to result in
> non allocated code points being used which represents a higher threat to
> interoperability than adding an algorithm.
>
+1
>
Peace,
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:08 PM Warren Kumari wrote:
> [..skip..]
> Looking in the webserver log, there are also some hits - e.g:
> - - [21/May/2020:19:09:10 +] "GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.1" 404 209
> "http://www.wow4dns.com/; "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X
> 10_15_4)
Peace,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:44 PM Naveen Kottapalli
wrote:
> My query was about the behavior we observed on a gateway
> where a pure v4 subscriber (not dual-stack) has sent both A
> and query for the same domain simultaneously. Just
> wanted to know why would a pure v4 subscriber
Errata:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019, 5:59 PM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> Even only to note later that those didn't see
> widespread adoption afterwards.
>
* "Even _if_ only ...", I'm not really that pessimistic.
--
Töma
>
___
DN
In favor of adoption.
And while we're at it, doesn't it make sense to (kinda proactively)
include some potential transports in the draft (like DoQ) to avoid RFC
one-liners in future? Even only to note later that those didn't see
widespread adoption afterwards.
--
Töma
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at
Peace,
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019, 7:17 AM Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > The DNS 2019 not only had ON THE DAY changes (thanks to Google changing
> > their 8.8.8.8 service on the day)
>
> So even pumping up the hype didn't actually help inform the people that
>
On Wed, May 1, 2019, 12:10 AM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. Puneet, Roy and I have just published a -00 with an idea
> for how to get information about a recursive resolver from the resolver, if
> it wants to give that information.
>
The draft assumes that both the recursive resolver
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 9:46 AM Warren Kumari wrote:
> also, a good suggestion for a name would be helpful :-)
That is, aside from "scent" which is as obvious, as it is weird?
--
Töma
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 2:03 PM Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> I believe Cricket Liu refers to draft-woodworth-bulk-rr
Certainly not. See
https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/middle-aged-dns-tech-still-has-legs-to-kick-on
from the same author where the idea is explained kind of better:
"The
graded absorber,
mentioned in (5).
> 2: R1 [..]
> But the distribution of queries tend to be skewed towards authoritatives with
> lower
There's a reason for that that you may want to mention, namely, smoothed RTT.
| Töma Gavrichenkov
| gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191
12 matches
Mail list logo
