Hi all,
please see below.
> Am 14.09.2018 um 13:26 schrieb Tony Finch :
>
> 神明達哉 wrote:
>>
>> Whether we *SHOULD* (rather than MAY) allow the conventional response
>> in case of TCP is a different question, on which I don't have a strong
>> opinion.
That the question I had. Currently the doc
神明達哉 wrote:
>
> Whether we *SHOULD* (rather than MAY) allow the conventional response
> in case of TCP is a different question, on which I don't have a strong
> opinion.
I think at the moment it is mostly harmless and sometimes helpful for
debugging or inspection - e.g. `dig` switches to TCP by
At Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:25:04 +0200,
"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" wrote:
>>> I'm wondering if it would make sense to provide stronger guidance that
the
>>> conventional ANY response SHOULD be provided if TCP is used as TCP
already
>>> provides a retrun routability proof...? Also maybe provide a
Hi Olafur,
please see below.
> Am 13.09.2018 um 00:02 schrieb Ólafur Guðmundsson :
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:27 PM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: Yes
>
> When responding, please keep the
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:27 PM, Mirja Kühlewind
wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: Yes
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any-07: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
