On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:50:37PM +0800,
> 延志伟 wrote
> a message of 113 lines which said:
>
>> #Z. W. Yan: we will revised it as: "an authoritative name server
>> #operator can ensure that the recursive server that the client is
>>
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:50:37PM +0800,
延志伟 wrote
a message of 113 lines which said:
> #Z. W. Yan: we will revised it as: "an authoritative name server
> #operator can ensure that the recursive server that the client is
> #using has all the answers in its cache from the authoritative point
>
Hi, Stephane,
Sorry for the delayed response.
Please find the in-line answers and welcome your further comments:
* the draft gives the impression that it authorizes a new behaviour.
But auth. servers have been sending extra data (IP address of a MX target, for
instance) for years.
#Z.W. Yan:
Hi, Stephane,
Sorry for the delayed response.
Please find the in-line answers and welcome your further comments:
* the draft gives the impression that it authorizes a new behaviour.
But auth. servers have been sending extra data (IP address of a MX target, for
instance) for years.
#Z.W. Yan:
On 7/19/15 10:47 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 03:48:13PM -0400,
Warren Kumari wrote
a message of 68 lines which said:
A number of people approached me at DNS-OARC and the RIPE DNS track
in Amsterdam asking what became of this draft, and could we please
update it
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 03:48:13PM -0400,
Warren Kumari wrote
a message of 68 lines which said:
> A number of people approached me at DNS-OARC and the RIPE DNS track
> in Amsterdam asking what became of this draft, and could we please
> update it.
It's not on the agenda on monday, isn't it?
Hi all,
A number of people approached me at DNS-OARC and the RIPE DNS track in
Amsterdam asking what became of this draft, and could we please update
it.
Wes and I finally had some time to work on it in Buenos Aires, after
the ICANN meeting (actually, Wes did the work, I just mumbled and
brought h
