In message 20150330030443.ga23...@isc.org, Evan Hunt writes:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 06:38:24PM -0400, Donald Eastlake wrote:
The big argument against a Cookie error field, that I can see, is that
it isn't there in the BIND implementation and running code speaks
loudly in the IETF.
When
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 06:38:24PM -0400, Donald Eastlake wrote:
The big argument against a Cookie error field, that I can see, is that
it isn't there in the BIND implementation and running code speaks
loudly in the IETF.
When this is standardized, BIND will be changing the OPT code anyway;
Greetings again. Can one of you summarize the differences between sections 4/5
and 6/7 in the recent -01 draft? It seems that the error code processing in 4/5
might either be useful or overkill.
A related question for Don: how close are you to getting draft-eastlake-fnv
published? For me, it
In message 683e2720-66f7-4b45-8787-99bd93fa2...@vpnc.org, Paul Hoffman writes
:
Greetings again. Can one of you summarize the differences between
sections 4/5 and 6/7 in the recent -01 draft? It seems that the error
code processing in 4/5 might either be useful or overkill.
I can't think of a
Hi,
I've made some progress on the FNV code. I expect to be able to
advance it, presumably as AD sponsored, before the next IETF.
On DNS Cookies errors, I agree that the utility of the error field, as
far as we can see right now, is quite limited. Still, there can be
error conditions in the
