On 3/16/15, 11:05, "bert hubert" wrote:
>Sorry? We solve implementation hardship by standards action now?
My thoughts in this thread (and I'm choosing to keep this in
dns-operations) keep circling because I've spent time at different
perspectives.
On one hand we like to say that the Internet
Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> But, I do agree with the handwaving argument to date is insufficient and a
> bit weak. It is right to challenge the proposal as it stands (as I have
> done too). While I an inclined to agree to deprecate qtype=ANY as well as
> other elements of the protocol I am also incl
On 3/17/15 6:17 AM, Yunhong Gu wrote:
> > Sounds to me this is the root cause of the problem and ANY is the just a
> > scapegoat.
>
> Giving NSEC3PARAM a positive TTL would prevent my headache, but it
> wouldn't help the victim of the attack, and would probably make it worse
>
(Choosing DNS-operations.)
On 3/13/15, 18:21, "Darcy Kevin (FCA)" wrote:
>IANAL, but I think this might have legal ramifications. If they are
>advertising/selling "DNS" services and what they are delivering is not
>"DNS", then Truth in Advertising and/or Bait-and-Switch statutes,
>regulations an
