On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:23:50 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
>In message <17673.1448400...@dash.isi.edu>, John Heidemann writes:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:25:29 +, "Wessels, Duane" wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Jinmei
>> >>
>> >> On M
In message <17673.1448400...@dash.isi.edu>, John Heidemann writes:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:25:29 +, "Wessels, Duane" wrote:
> >
> >> On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Jinmei
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:31:23AM -0800, $B?@L@C#:H(B wrote:
> >>> At
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:25:29 +, "Wessels, Duane" wrote:
>
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jinmei
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:31:23AM -0800, 神明達哉 wrote:
>>> At Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:37:48 +0530,
>>> Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>>>
While looking at a bu
At Tue, 24 Nov 2015 01:28:26 +0530,
Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> > I'm not sure if I understand the concern...do you mean, for example,
> > if an AXFR consists of the following 3 messages:
> >
> > Message1: beginning SOA and some RRs
> > Message2: some intermediate RRs
> > Message3: some more interm
Hi Duane
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:25:29PM +, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> TCP preserves the order of delivery, so if the messages are received
> in the order above, it is an AXFR/IXFR protocol violation by the
> server. The server must send Message4 last.
Because 5966bis talks about reordering,
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>
> Hi Jinmei
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:31:23AM -0800, 神明達哉 wrote:
>> At Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:37:48 +0530,
>> Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>>
>>> While looking at a bug last week in an implementation of 5966bis and
>>> AXFR, I found that
Hi Duane
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 07:42:16PM +, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> The document authors have discussed this and we feel the addition of this
> paragraph in section 7 addresses the issue that you've raised:
>
>Note that AXFR [RFC5936] and IXFR [RFC1995] have the property that
>one
Hi Jinmei
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:31:23AM -0800, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:37:48 +0530,
> Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>
> > While looking at a bug last week in an implementation of 5966bis and
> > AXFR, I found that there's no explicit mention of AXFR and out-of-order
> > replies. AXFR
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:07 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>
> It seems that AXFR messages would have to be sent in order to avoid
> confusion at the client about when a transfer correctly completed
> vs. when it timed out. While they can be multiplexed with other DNS
> messages, the individual mess
At Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:37:48 +0530,
Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> While looking at a bug last week in an implementation of 5966bis and
> AXFR, I found that there's no explicit mention of AXFR and out-of-order
> replies. AXFR replies [RFC 5936] can arrive in several messages over
> TCP. While 5966bis
Hi all
[sending this to only dnsop@ for our discussion]
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 05:58:08AM -0800, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
> (dnsop) to consider the following document:
> - 'DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements'
The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
(dnsop) to consider the following document:
- 'DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements'
as Internet Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this actio
12 matches
Mail list logo
