On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 07:58:11AM +0200,
Sara Dickinson wrote
a message of 58 lines which said:
> there still are a couple of features that are missing from Unbound
> for it to be fully performant/production ready.
Out-of-order replies, for instance.
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 11:11:08AM +0200,
Sara Dickinson wrote
a message of 32 lines which said:
> A number of organisations have expressed interest in running such a
> DNS Privacy enabled server and we would like to start a discussion
> in the RIPE community to see if there is similar interes
Hello,
Anand just mentioned at his presentation at RIPE 72 that the RIPE NCC
is now implementing RIPE 663:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-663
There were a couple of suggestions for tweaks to that:
1. Gaurab and I think that there should be an exemption for ccTLD who
do not curre
Hi Shane,
On 16/05/26 14:33 , Shane Kerr wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Anand just mentioned at his presentation at RIPE 72 that the RIPE NCC
> is now implementing RIPE 663:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-663
>
> There were a couple of suggestions for tweaks to that:
>
> 1. Gaurab and I
Jerry,
This sounds like a wonderful opportunity and I look forward to continued
discussion. Taking a look at the ODVR link, one thing that jumps out at me
is the contrast between end-users purposefully using the server for privacy
and the provision of their DNS query data to the OARC membership.
Hi Allison,
On 05/26/16 16:58, Allison Mankin wrote:
> Taking a look at the ODVR link, one thing that jumps out at
> me is the contrast between end-users purposefully using the server for
> privacy and the provision of their DNS query data to the OARC
> membership.
ODVR was just a thought and at
> On 26 May 2016, at 13:33, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
> 1. Gaurab and I think that there should be an exemption for ccTLD who
> do not currently have IPv6 service. (There are a few tens of ccTLD
> who do not yet have IPV6, and I would like the RIPE NCC to be
> able to help them get IPv6 service
> On 26 May 2016, at 14:44, Romeo Zwart wrote:
>
> Following the guidelines of the working group, we (the NCC) have
> recently started reviewing eligibility of ccTLDs based on the existing
> document text. If the document moves back to a 'limbo-state' based on
> renewed discussion in the WG that
Shameless plug - Knot DNS Resolver has out-of-order replies, query
deduplication + pipelining, and TCP fastopen.
There's a PR open for DNS/TLS started at the OARC hackathon, but it wasn't
finished. It would be terrific if somebody could pick that up, so we could
have some real-world useable impleme
