To be clear, I agree that it's a small point, and I was mostly
interested for other reasons having to do with another draft (the one
I mentioned). I didn't think this was a blocking question.
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 09:44:10AM +1000, George Michaelson wrote:
> I think we're rat holing.
[…]
> On
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 5:36 AM, Robert Story wrote:
> On Tue 2018-01-30 22:40:11-0500 Joe wrote:
> > I made a comment some time ago in response to someone's (Warren's
> > again, I think, but I'm not sure) observed confusion in others about
> > the draft. I recall that I suggested that the draft
On Tue 2018-01-30 22:40:11-0500 Joe wrote:
> I made a comment some time ago in response to someone's (Warren's
> again, I think, but I'm not sure) observed confusion in others about
> the draft. I recall that I suggested that the draft include some
> explicit advice for all the various actors here
On 31/01/2018 00:58, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> The problem you hit was in BIND. To get around it, you simply add
> "check-names master warn;" to the options.
If you're doing that, please put it in the zone specific stanza, and not
in the global options for the server:
zone "foo" {
type master;
I stress, I'm not an author on this one. I'm also heavily biassed by
role and relationship(s) with the authors.
I'm trying to play nice, in that context: I want it shipped. I think
its a net useful contribution.
So, I think your suggestion of guiding words is good. If it was my
draft, I'd welcome
Hi George,
On Jan 30, 2018, at 21:49, George Michaelson wrote:
>> The problem you hit was in BIND. To get around it, you simply add
>> "check-names master warn;" to the options.
>
> And with this.. he was good again. So, modulo the implementation
> cost/consequence, I'm good here.
>
> But, if
>The problem you hit was in BIND. To get around it, you simply add "check-names
>master warn;" to the options.
And with this.. he was good again. So, modulo the implementation
cost/consequence, I'm good here.
But, if this is detail, then I'm back at 10,000ft: noting the IETF is
all about detail,
On 30 Jan 2018, at 16:29, Warren Kumari wrote:
There is one matter of substance (but, IMO, very minor substance!) --
the original document said that the names are of the form:
_is-ta-[key].example.com
_not-ta-[key].example.com
This works, but some implementations really don't like having A/AAA
I tested this. you can bind _label onto CNAME but not A/. bind
won't serve zones with it.
So yea.. I think the change is needed.
thats substantful.
-G
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:44 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
>> I think we're rat ho
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:44 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> I think we're rat holing. I'm not an author on this draft, but I know
> them both, and I work with one, and I believe the draft is basically
> in the right space and .. well.. we're rat holing.
>
> So, noting my disclaimer of bias, can we
I think we're rat holing. I'm not an author on this draft, but I know
them both, and I work with one, and I believe the draft is basically
in the right space and .. well.. we're rat holing.
So, noting my disclaimer of bias, can we .. move on? Is there real
matters of substance left on this one? It
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:42:15AM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> I realise that the following is not what anybody means in this thread
Hmm. Actually, I wasn't sure :-)
> I probably missed some. Anyway, I think when people are saying "address
> record" here they actually mean "IP address record".
Hey,
> On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:24, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:37:55PM +0100, Martin Hoffmann wrote:
>> Perhaps define a term for "A or " such as "address record"?
>
> I went and looked at terminology-bis and noted that we use "address
> record" and parenthetically
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:37:55PM +0100, Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> Perhaps define a term for "A or " such as "address record"?
I went and looked at terminology-bis and noted that we use "address
record" and parenthetically define it. Should we define it more
formally?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
Indeed, the concept of "address record" has also come up in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-aname-01 , which even
suggests (but does not specify) the creation of an IANA registry.
On 01/29/2018 05:37 PM, Martin Hoffmann wrote:
Warren Kumari wrote:
Yes, you are right -- for all p
Warren Kumari writes:
> "Throughout this document, we are using A to refer to an Address
> record (either 'A' or '') " -- having "A or " scattered all
> over the document makes it now flow as nicely...
Just for fun, turn that around: "Throughout this document, we are
using ... e
Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> Yes, you are right -- for all places where there is 'A' it should be
> 'A or '; how do people feel about something along the lines of:
>
> "Throughout this document, we are using A to refer to an Address
> record (either 'A' or '') " -- having "A or " scatter
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Robert Story wrote:
> On Mon 2017-11-13 18:26:02-0800 internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System
>> Operations WG of the IETF.
>
> I was r
On Mon 2017-11-13 18:26:02-0800 internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System
> Operations WG of the IETF.
I was re-reading the draft today and noticed that Vold and Vnew are
i
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > On Nov 15, 2017, at 00:23, Bob Harold wrote:
> >
> > If I have to add those entries to each zone, I worry that the automated
> DNS
> > appliance that I use might not be
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> On Nov 15, 2017, at 00:23, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> If I have to add those entries to each zone, I worry that the automated DNS
> appliance that I use might not be able to create the broken records
> required.
>
> Since the implementati
Hi Bob,
On Nov 15, 2017, at 00:23, Bob Harold wrote:
If I have to add those entries to each zone, I worry that the automated DNS
appliance that I use might not be able to create the broken records
required.
Since the implementation of the mechanism requires special handling of
queries whose QNA
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 9:26 PM, wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the
> IETF.
>
> Title : A Sentinel for Detecting Trusted Keys in DNSSEC
>
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
Title : A Sentinel for Detecting Trusted Keys in DNSSEC
Authors : Geoff Huston
24 matches
Mail list logo
