On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Mark Delany f...@november.emu.st wrote:
On 15Feb15, Paul Hoffman allegedly wrote:
secretary hat on
On Feb 15, 2015, at 4:49 AM, Suzanne Woolf suzworldw...@gmail.com wrote:
The WG adopted this document some time ago (the announcement to the list
is dated
The WG adopted this document some time ago (the announcement to the list is
dated Nov. 14, 2014).
It now needs reviewers to review and authors to revise.
If you agreed to review it earlier, or even if you didn't but you're
interested, please do.
Authors, any feedback on the reviews/comments
secretary hat on
On Feb 15, 2015, at 4:49 AM, Suzanne Woolf suzworldw...@gmail.com wrote:
The WG adopted this document some time ago (the announcement to the list is
dated Nov. 14, 2014).
Yep, and the authors turned in an WG-named draft:
On 15Feb15, Paul Hoffman allegedly wrote:
secretary hat on
On Feb 15, 2015, at 4:49 AM, Suzanne Woolf suzworldw...@gmail.com wrote:
The WG adopted this document some time ago (the announcement to the list is
dated Nov. 14, 2014).
Yep, and the authors turned in an WG-named draft:
Thinking more about this I figure out some things.
First, the resolver query needs to include ECS and can't be a regular
query, that's need to verify end to end ECS support, but I think it's not a
big problem. I think we need a official way to detect if authoritative has
support or not and it
On 2/13/15, 9:05 AM, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.commailto:jason_living...@cable.comcast.com
wrote:
we've got running code in bind. and no doubt other product.
Should be also in Nominet’s resolver.
BTW, I meant NomiNUM not NomiNET. Darned Nomi* names. ;-)
JL
On 2/12/15, 2:54 PM, George Michaelson
g...@algebras.orgmailto:g...@algebras.org wrote:
we've got two agencies who do DNS, and probably have 20% worldwide eyeball
share in DNS (I don't know, thats a guesstimate) now doing edns0_client_subnet
albiet with whitelist, so its a permit-list, but
On 12Feb15, George Michaelson allegedly wrote:
we've got two agencies who do DNS, and probably have 20% worldwide
eyeball share in DNS (I don't know, thats a guesstimate) now doing
edns0_client_subnet albiet with whitelist, so its a permit-list, but its
functionally 'there'
Whitelists are
The question about whitelist is the problem. I think it need to be
addressed on this doc.
There's some approaches, like Google does, doing low rate ECS query:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/public-dns-announce/67oxFjSLeUM
Or something not so traditional like TXT record on domain record
The draft is available here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet/
a) 6.2 - Intent of SCOPE NETMASK
In both cases, the value of the SCOPE NETMASK in the reply has strong
implications with regard to how the reply will be cached
I wonder whether SCOPE
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Suzanne Woolf suzworldw...@gmail.com wrote:
Colleagues,
This call for adoption closed earlier this week, during IETF91.
We see significant support in the WG for working on
draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet. We're adopting it as a WG item.
Thanks
Colleagues,
This call for adoption closed earlier this week, during IETF91.
We see significant support in the WG for working on
draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet. We're adopting it as a WG item.
Thanks to the authors for reviving it, please resubmit with any changes you
have
Dear DNSOP WG,
This draft documents the specification, use, and cautions regarding the
client-subnet EDNS option. Please consider adoption of this draft as a WG
work item.
As some of you will remember, this is a successor to a draft that was
considered in DNSEXT some time ago and eventually
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Suzanne Woolf suzworldw...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear DNSOP WG,
This draft documents the specification, use, and cautions regarding the
client-subnet EDNS option. Please consider adoption of this draft as a WG
work item.
As some of you will remember, this is a
no hat
I support the adoption of this document in the WG even if it gets significantly
changed during the WG discussion. I will review it as it progresses.
--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
suzworldwide The draft is available here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet/
suzworldwide Please review to see if you think this document is
suzworldwide suitable for adoption by DNSOP and comment to the list.
I support this draft as a working group
Warren Kumari:
We actually have some updates that unfortunately didn't *quite* make
it in before the cutoff[0].
[0]: Yes, making it in before the cut-off or not making it in before
the cut-off is a binary, but, well
Please feel free to hurl suitably non-lethal objects at me. It was
all
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
This draft documents the specification, use, and cautions regarding the
client-subnet EDNS option. Please consider adoption of this draft as a WG
work item.
I have a recollection we already did this call? Because I said I
reluctantly agreed to adopt
I support adoption because operators are using this spec. I plan to review
and also to encourage a few others who have reviews to contribute.
On 28 October 2014 08:50, Suzanne Woolf suzworldw...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear DNSOP WG,
This draft documents the specification, use, and cautions
19 matches
Mail list logo
