> > There are some false equivalences floating around here. I don't
> > think anyone is suggesting that having provisioning systems or even
> > DNS servers themselves check for syntax errors in the contents of
> > complex records like DKIM, SPF, DMARC, or whatever is necessarily a
> > bad idea. (Wh
- Original Message -
From: "Paul E. Jones"
To: "'Mark Nottingham'"
Cc: "'Randall Gellens'" ;
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:19 AM
Subject: RE: Last Call: (DeprecatingUse of the
"X-" Prefix in Application Protocols) to BestCurrent Practice
> I suppose one could argue that X- should
On 07/Mar/12 09:42, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
>
>> It would still be possible to work around the need for a plugin, e.g.
>> by depending on some wizard web site, as in John's thought experiment.
>
>> For the rest of us, the possibility to install a plugin that takes
>> care of all the nit
Gee, by sheer random walk this has wandered back to the original topic,
that provisioning software is the major bar to deploying new RRs.
Most provisioning systems really don't care about most of the data
they are throwing about. It may as well be a opaque blob.
I couldn't disagree more. Ot
FYI MPLS and L2VPN WGs.
Stewart
Original Message
Subject: Last Call: (LDP Typed Wildcard FEC for PWid and Generalized
PWid FEC Elements) to Proposed Standard
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:33:04 -0800
From: The IESG
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Authors
There was on point that I notice that you did not address
from the AD review and so I am picking it up as a LC comment:
In section 10 you say:
"This document makes the following update to the PwOperStatusTC
textual convention in RFC5542 [8]: "
This update should be recorded in t
After looking over this just now - and forgive me as I didn't realize
it contained a reference to 5542 until now - it seems to me that rather that
including this in the RFC as "an update to RFC5542", this be added as an errata
entry to 5542. It seems odd to me to note that the single s
It cannot be an erratum.
An erratum indicated an error a the time of writing and that is clearly
not the case.
Is the text " For example, the PW Preferential Forwarding status state
machine as defined in [RFC (this document)] is in state "STANDBY". "
actually in the MIB definition itself
Hi Dan,
| > | Section 7.7, "Shim6 and IPv6 NAT", the problem could be overcome by
| > the
| > | Shim6 node knowing its IPv6 address after NPTv6 translation.
| > Probably
| > not
| > | worth adjusting the document, though, as NPTv6 is experimental.
| >
| > Well, this would not work for H
Ooops. Thank you for pointing this out Stewart. I will make the update and
publish a new revision.
Mustapha.
-Original Message-
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbry...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:48 PM
To: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org;
Mustapha,
You might want to wait for any other LC comments before updating.
Thanks,
Andy
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha) <
mustapha.aissa...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> Ooops. Thank you for pointing this out Stewart. I will make the update and
> publish a new revi
makes sense Andy.
Thanks,
Mustapha.
From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:ama...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:53 PM
To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
Cc: stbry...@cisco.com; draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-...@tools.ietf.org;
p...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Subj
> On 07/Mar/12 09:42, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
> >
> >> It would still be possible to work around the need for a plugin, e.g.
> >> by depending on some wizard web site, as in John's thought experiment.
> >
> >> For the rest of us, the possibility to install a plugin that takes
> >> care of
In message , "John R. Levine" wr
ites:
> Gee, by sheer random walk this has wandered back to the original topic,
> that provisioning software is the major bar to deploying new RRs.
>
> > Most provisioning systems really don't care about most of the data
> > they are throwing about. It may as we
Most provisioning systems really don't care about most of the data
they are throwing about. It may as well be a opaque blob. ...
Assuming you're not talking about editing zone files with vi, can you give
some specific examples of what you're talking about?
Most provisioning systems ...
Hi
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:49:22AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Take SPF as a example. If providers had supported UNKNOWN format
> then the SPF generation tools would have done UNKNOWN + SPF type
> specific rather than TXT + SPF.
My father used to have a saying: "If Johnny hadn't died, they woul
In message , "John R. Levine" wr
ites:
> >>> Most provisioning systems really don't care about most of the data
> >>> they are throwing about. It may as well be a opaque blob. ...
>
> >> Assuming you're not talking about editing zone files with vi, can you give
> >> some specific examples of wh
Most provisioning systems ...
I well know they don't because they are still stuck in 1980's think
mode. ...
Hi. Could you give some concrete examples of DNS provisioning systems
that let you enter arbitrary RRs? I've never seen one in the wild, other
than the one I wrote for myself.
Regar
Mark Andrews wrote:
Stop asking for type support and ask for UNKNOWN record support
from your provider. UNKNOWN record support will handle type
and anything new that will come along.
+1
By supporting UNKNOWN record format, providers get to know which
types are actually being used
Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Martin Rex writes:
> > Mark Andrews wrote:
> > >
> > > "John Levine" writes:
> > > >
> > > > In case it wasn't clear, this is an authoritative server.
> >
> > If this is about permitted RCODEs here
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035#section-4.1.1
> >
> > then
In message <20120307223904.gw79...@mail.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:49:22AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Take SPF as a example. If providers had supported UNKNOWN format
> > then the SPF generation tools would have done UNKNOWN + SPF type
> > specific r
In message <201203072304.q27n4gdx000...@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>, Martin Rex writes
:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > Martin Rex writes:
> > > Mark Andrews wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "John Levine" writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > In case it wasn't clear, this is an authoritative server.
> > >
> > > If this is
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark
> Andrews
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:28 PM
> To: m...@sap.com
> Cc: jo...@iecc.com; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
>
> > M
In message <9452079d1a51524aa5749ad23e00392807e...@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.c
om>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" writes:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mar
> k Andrews
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:28 PM
> > To: m...@sap
Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Randy claimed that presentation formats were not standardised. They
> are. Randy and others claimed that the presentation formats were
> owned by BIND and they are not.
>
> I never claimed that STD 13 was the be all and end all w.r.t. DNS.
>
> STD 13 didn't follow the n
25 matches
Mail list logo
