[DNSOP] I-D ACTION: draft-lee-anycastdns-service-00.txt

Hello, I've submitted draft-lee-anycastdns-service-00.txt. Here is an I-D, A Model of IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack Anycast DNS Service. Questions and comments are welcomed. Thanks, Seunghoon Lee * To: i-d-announce at ietf.org * Subject: I-D ACTION:dra

Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil Regnauld) writes: > Thanks for sharing the paper. I just checked it out quickly and it > looks very interesting indeed. I like the concept of meta-zone. i'll share the code privately with anyone who wants it, but it's not ready for public release. note that

Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt

Paul Vixie (vixie) writes: > > the attached paper was published last year but i've not got around to > writing an I-D for it nor releasing the software that implements it. i > have shared it privately with a number of folks, and it's in fairly wide > use among the folks ISC trades slave nameservi

Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt

Joe Abley (jabley) writes: > > Consider the various approaches used by ISC and others to populate a > zone with data that can be extracted by a nameserver and used to > configure itself, for example. No protocol there -- more like a zone > schema. I am certain that most of the requi

Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt

Joe, On Dec 20, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Joe Abley wrote: Well, I haven't read through the requirements document yet, but there are approaches which meet the general goals that I think it's talking about which don't involve a new protocol. The document specifically mentions one (proprietary) proto

Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt

On 20-Dec-2006, at 11:59, David Conrad wrote: Stephane, I would like to know if people here believe that this work is on- topic for the WG. It does not change the protocol (so it does not seem adapted to DNS Extensions) but it is not really "DNS operations". It sounds to me like you're wan

Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt

Stephane, I would like to know if people here believe that this work is on-topic for the WG. It does not change the protocol (so it does not seem adapted to DNS Extensions) but it is not really "DNS operations". It sounds to me like you're wanting to define a new protocol. I think the topic

Re: [DNSOP] ISSUE 10 reverse-mapping-considerations

At 10:47 -0500 12/20/06, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 07:31:09AM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote: Perhaps what needs to be conveyed is that the DNS response to a reverse map query for an address ought to reflect what is supposed to be seen at the address. I like that as a genera

Re: [DNSOP] ISSUE 10 reverse-mapping-considerations

On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 07:31:09AM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote: > Perhaps what needs to be conveyed is that the DNS response to a > reverse map query for an address ought to reflect what is supposed to > be seen at the address. I like that as a general statement of the point of all of this. Since

Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt

At 10:05 +0100 12/20/06, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: I would like to know if people here believe that this work is on-topic for the WG. It does not change the protocol (so it does not seem adapted to DNS Extensions) but it is not really "DNS operations". Title : Requirments fo

Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt

> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 10:05:50AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > I would like to know if people here believe that this work is on-topic > for the WG. It does not change the protocol (so it does not seem > adapted to DNS Extensions) but it is not really "DNS operations". DNSOP looks about

Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt

On 20-Dec-2006, at 04:05, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: I would like to know if people here believe that this work is on-topic for the WG. This seems entirely on-topic for dnsop to me. Joe ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org

Re: [DNSOP] ISSUE 10 reverse-mapping-considerations

At 15:27 -0500 12/5/06, Andrew Sullivan wrote: I propose to add the following text to section 4.1 ("Delegation Recommendations"): Some IP addresses on the Internet are assigned for special use. These addresses are described in [RFC3330]. In general, for addressess that are expected to

Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt

On Dec 20, 2006, at 10:05 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: I would like to know if people here believe that this work is on-topic for the WG. It does not change the protocol (so it does not seem adapted to DNS Extensions) but it is not really "DNS operations". I think it is on topic here (in dn

Re: [DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt

On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 10:05:50AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > I would like to know if people here believe that this work is on-topic > for the WG. It does not change the protocol (so it does not seem > adapted to DNS Extensions) but it is not really "DNS operations". I'm very interested i

[DNSOP] I-D ACTION:draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt

I would like to know if people here believe that this work is on-topic for the WG. It does not change the protocol (so it does not seem adapted to DNS Extensions) but it is not really "DNS operations". --- Begin Message --- A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directo