On 2024-09-09 17:51 -05, Nick Buraglio <burag...@forwardingplane.net> wrote: > dnsop folks, > > Based on some conversations and discussions at the end of the second > session at 120, several of us worked out a draft to address what we believe > are some notable details in RFC7050. This draft was just submitted to the > datatracker, and we would appreciate any input, comments, corrections, and > productive discussion from the expertise of the group. The draft can be > read at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-buraglio-deprecate7050/ > > Thanks in advance, we look forward to anything the list is willing to > provide.
I think this plain needs killing, RFC8781 is so much better. It occurred to me that a validating stub resolver still needs to know if its upstream is messing with DNS. With RFC9606 we can just ask the resolver what it's doing, so I put up https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fobser-resinfo-dns64/ A validating stub can then avoid that resolver or do more fancy things like spotting that the resolver did DNS64 synthesis, ignore that answer and do its own synthesis using the 8781 prefix... > > Thanks! > > nb > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org > -- In my defence, I have been left unsupervised. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
