In message , Chris Tho
mpson writes:
> On May 16 2015, Mark Andrews wrote:
> [...]
> >When IANA and ARIN finally gets around to doing 64.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
> >et al., which has been waiting over a year for the of DNSOP to write
> >up the last call of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303 to be written
>
On May 16 2015, Mark Andrews wrote:
[...]
When IANA and ARIN finally gets around to doing 64.100.IN-ADDR.ARPA
et al., which has been waiting over a year for the of DNSOP to write
up the last call of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303 to be written
up, it should be done similar to this with a insecu
On May 14 2015, Rob Foehl wrote:
[...]
Adding empty.as112.arpa to the list seems like a good idea, but removing
the existing empty zones does not -- they also prevent leaking internal
queries, which is both more noise for the root/IANA/AS112 infrastructure
to sink and a potential privacy concer
In message , Warren Kumari writes:
> On Thursday, May 14, 2015, Rob Foehl wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 May 2015, Chris Thompson wrote:
> >
> > Now that RFCs 7[5]34 & 7[5]35 have been published, how do ISC see the
> >> future
> >> of the seemingly ever-expanding built-in empty zone list in BIND?
> >>
Add before we get the ticket to add it.
4117. [protocol] Add EMPTY.AS112.ARPA as per RFC 7534.
Mark
In message , Rob Foehl
writes:
> On Thu, 14 May 2015, Chris Thompson wrote:
>
> > Now that RFCs 7[5]34 & 7[5]35 have been published, how do ISC see the future
> > of the seemingly ever-e
On Thu, 14 May 2015, Chris Thompson wrote:
Now that RFCs 7[5]34 & 7[5]35 have been published, how do ISC see the future
of the seemingly ever-expanding built-in empty zone list in BIND?
One possibility that seems plausible to me is to add EMPTY.AS112.ARPA
to the list now, and remove existing en
Am 14.05.2015 um 18:29 schrieb Chris Thompson:
Now that RFCs 7434 & 7435 have been published, how do ISC see the future
of the seemingly ever-expanding built-in empty zone list in BIND?
One possibility that seems plausible to me is to add EMPTY.AS112.ARPA
to the list now, and remove existing en
On May 14 2015, I wrote:
Now that RFCs 7434 & 7435 have been published, how do ISC see the future ...
That should be 7_5_34 & 7_5_35 of course. Curses.
--
Chris Thompson
Email: c...@cam.ac.uk
___
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo
8 matches
Mail list logo
