On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 08:03:35PM -0400,
Tim Wicinski wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming
I know, it's too late (damned holidays) but I think the document is
OK, I just suggest a few additions:
Section 3.3: R
At Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:31:18 -0700,
"Paul Hoffman" wrote:
> > - Section 2
> >
> >Therefore, it is important that resolvers be able to cope with
> >change, even without relying upon configuration updates to be
> > applied
> >by their operator.
> >
> > If we really want to make it wor
On 8/4/16, 20:03, "DNSOP on behalf of Tim Wicinski" wrote:
>Remember the Resolver Priming draft?
Comments on the draft
(https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-07.txt):
## 3.3. DNSSEC with Priming Queries
##
##The resolver MAY set the DNSSEC OK [RFC4033] bit. At the ti
On 17 Aug 2016, at 9:45, 神明達哉 wrote:
I've read draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-07. I think this is a
useful document and is almost ready for publication.
Thanks for the careful review.
But there seem
to be a few non-trivial issues that may need to be addressed.
Specific comments:
- Sect
All
The WGLC last call for resolver-priming has concluded. There was a solid
number of good reviews, and no reasons to not publish this.
I want to thank everyone who gave reviews and feedback. I'm going to go
over the list with the author(s) and make sure everything was covered.
thanks
tim
At Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:03:31 -0400,
Bob Harold wrote:
> > - Section 2
> >
> >Therefore, it is important that resolvers be able to cope with
> >change, even without relying upon configuration updates to be applied
> >by their operator.
> >
> > If we really want to make it work "even
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:45 PM, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Thu, 4 Aug 2016 20:03:35 -0400,
> Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> > This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-
> priming
> >
> > Current versions of the draft is available here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-
At Thu, 4 Aug 2016 20:03:35 -0400,
Tim Wicinski wrote:
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming
>
> Current versions of the draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming/
>
> Please review the draft and offer re
At Sat, 13 Aug 2016 14:01:52 +0300,
Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with existing resolvers that use the same
> timeout and retransmission strategies for priming queries as for any
> other query, and it seems wrong to me that a specific retransmission
> timeout should be requir
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2016, at 2:45, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
>> First, we have:
>>
>> "If a priming query does not get a response within 2 seconds, the
>> recursive resolver SHOULD retry with a different target address from
>> the configuration."
>>
>> T
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2016, at 2:45, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
>> First, we have:
>>
>> "If a priming query does not get a response within 2 seconds, the
>> recursive resolver SHOULD retry with a different target address from
>> the configuration."
>>
>> T
On 5 Aug 2016, at 2:45, Shane Kerr wrote:
First, we have:
"If a priming query does not get a response within 2 seconds, the
recursive resolver SHOULD retry with a different target address from
the configuration."
The "2 seconds" seems a bit arbitrary. I'm not sure why any
recommendations
On Wednesday, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > The "2 seconds" seems a bit arbitrary.
>
> Yep. But...
>
> > I'm not sure why any
> > recommendations need to be made at all. The document already says that
> > these are basically normal DNS queries elsewhere - surely that is
> > enough?
>
> The queries ar
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2016, at 2:45, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
> All,
>>
>> At 2016-08-04 20:03:35 -0400
>> Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>
>> Remember the Resolver Priming draft? This thing has been kicking around
>>> for a good solid 5 years. It stalled for a few yea
On 9 Aug 2016, at 15:11, william manning wrote:
> re the 2 second timeout.
>
> perhaps timeout does not express the intent well. I think of most of the
> DNS timeout options to be effectively hold-down timers - to be used to
> prevent excessive "chatty" behaviours.
Note that the term "timeout" w
On 5 Aug 2016, at 2:45, Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
At 2016-08-04 20:03:35 -0400
Tim Wicinski wrote:
Remember the Resolver Priming draft? This thing has been kicking
around
for a good solid 5 years. It stalled for a few years waiting for the
busy authors perform some updates.
Then Paul Hoffman t
re the 2 second timeout.
perhaps timeout does not express the intent well. I think of most of the
DNS timeout options to be effectively hold-down timers - to be used to
prevent excessive "chatty" behaviours.
/W
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Shane Kerr
wrote:
> All,
>
> At 2016-08-04 20:03:3
All,
At 2016-08-04 20:03:35 -0400
Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Remember the Resolver Priming draft? This thing has been kicking around
> for a good solid 5 years. It stalled for a few years waiting for the
> busy authors perform some updates.
> Then Paul Hoffman took the reins and has done a great jo
18 matches
Mail list logo