Re: [dns-operations] reopening discussion of stalled i-d: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query

Paul Vixie wrote: > > yes. however, i think we're all assuming that since CHAIN is an EDNS > option, that EDNS BUFSIZE will be at least 1500. Why is back-to-back fragmented UDP OK when back-to-back unfragmented UDP isn't? Why is TCP such a problem for name servers when web servers seem to cope O

Re: [dns-operations] reopening discussion of stalled i-d: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query

warning, there are some mostly-off-topic comments here regarding dns cookies, tcp cookies, tcp fast open, and the TCP/TLS proposal from ISI. but first: > Tony Finch > Tuesday, December 02, 2014 1:52 AM > > Why is back-to-back fragmented UDP OK when back-to-back unfragmented

[dns-operations] Is the historic NIC handle database searchable online?

Is the historic NIC handle DB available anywhere online for search? -- Fred Morris, FWM6 ___ dns-operations mailing list dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns

Re: [dns-operations] cool idea regarding root zone inviolability

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > Paul Vixie > Sunday, November 30, 2014 2:29 PM > > why? (your use case is not obvious from what you've written.) ... > > Chuck Anderson > Monday, December 01, 2014 7:09 AM > > Silent on-disk corruption. It happens, and it would be nice