On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 09:57:06AM -0700,
Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote
a message of 98 lines which said:
The definition in the draft includes ideas from RFC 5625, which
seems to be the much more common definition of forwarder used
today. However, the WG is free to define this
On 04/22/2015 02:33 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
[snip].
Please propose specific wording for the merge so the WG can see if
they like it better.
Policy-implementing resolver -- A resolver that changes some answers
it returns based on policy criteria, such as to prevent access to
malware
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 09:57:06AM -0700,
Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote
a message of 98 lines which said:
Passive DNS -- A mechanism to collect large amounts of DNS data
by storing queries and responses from recursive servers.
Most passive
Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
Yes. There are differences between the explicit definition for DNS
forwarder in RFC 2308 and the strongly implied definition in RFC 5625.
The difference here is that RFC 2308 uses forwarder to mean the target
of forwarded queries, whereas RFC 5625 is
On 20 Apr 2015, at 17:57, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
Yes. There are differences between the explicit definition for DNS forwarder
in RFC 2308 and the strongly implied definition in RFC 5625. The WG needs to
decide which definition it prefers, and an explanation of why
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 06:48:29AM -0400,
Tim WIcinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote
a message of 30 lines which said:
Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. Remember: This
draft is not attempting to redefine any definitions, but to collect
and formalize the definitions which do
On Apr 20, 2015, at 6:43 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
IMHO, the text can NOT be published with its definition of Forwarder.
The definition of Forwarder is still both confused and
self-contradictory.
Yes. There are differences between the explicit definition for DNS
Greetings,
While we've never had a formal call for adoption, this draft has had a
lot of comments about the contents, but never about the need for this
document. The need has been clear.
The chairs made the move of adopting the document directly, and we're
now opening a Working Group Last
