Re: [DNSOP] Application level DNS message fragmentation

On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 02:02:12PM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > 3. An additional RR (plain DNS) or pseudo RR (inside OPT) called > FRAGMENT is present in every datagram with 2 16-bit fields containing > the count of fragments, and current fragment. (Though a DNS message is > limited to 1<<16 o

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-operations] hong kong workshop, day 2, live link

>> this is an amusing list. i can understand EXAMPLE, LOCALHOST, and TEST. >> maybe even WHOIS and WWW. but the rest sure look as if lawyers wanted >> and got what is in effect a super trademark. > > Its also missing one thats actually really important to be reserved: > .onion. very much agree

[DNSOP] reserved names for gTLDs

On 9 Dec 2014, at 17:12, Randy Bush wrote: > this is an amusing list. i can understand EXAMPLE, LOCALHOST, and TEST. > maybe even WHOIS and WWW. but the rest sure look as if lawyers wanted > and got what is in effect a super trademark. Who cares? The names were ring-fenced some years ago and n

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-operations] hong kong workshop, day 2, live link

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > this is an amusing list. i can understand EXAMPLE, LOCALHOST, and TEST. > maybe even WHOIS and WWW. but the rest sure look as if lawyers wanted > and got what is in effect a super trademark. I am shocked that there are lawyers in the naming

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-operations] hong kong workshop, day 2, live link

> On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> Complementing what Edmon Chung mentioned that root-servers was already >> reserved in the last new gTLD round, here follows the complete list of >> reserved names: >> >> AFRINIC ... > > this is an amusing list. i can understand EXAMPLE, LOC

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-operations] hong kong workshop, day 2, live link

> Complementing what Edmon Chung mentioned that root-servers was already > reserved in the last new gTLD round, here follows the complete list of > reserved names: > > AFRINIC > IANA-SERVERS > NRO > ALAC > ICANN > RFC-EDITOR > APNIC > IESG > RIPE > ARIN > IETF > ROOT-SERVERS > ASO > INTERNIC > RSS

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-00.txt

On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 11:28:44AM +, Tony Finch wrote: > This is not the usual DNS meaning of recursion. Referrals occur during > *iterative* resolution. (Also, tangential to the point of this message, > delegation NS records are not glue - if there is glue in the response, > it isn't necessar

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-operations] hong kong workshop, day 2, live link

> Em 09/12/2014, à(s) 14:09:000, Rubens Kuhl escreveu: > >> >> Em 09/12/2014, à(s) 14:03:000, Eric Brunner-Williams >> escreveu: >> >> On 12/9/14 7:29 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >>> Paul, >>> >>> Complementing what Edmon Chung mentioned that root-servers was already >>> reserved in the last ne

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-operations] hong kong workshop, day 2, live link

> Em 09/12/2014, à(s) 14:03:000, Eric Brunner-Williams > escreveu: > > On 12/9/14 7:29 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> Paul, >> >> Complementing what Edmon Chung mentioned that root-servers was already >> reserved in the last new gTLD round, here follows the complete list of >> reserved names: >>

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-operations] hong kong workshop, day 2, live link

On 12/9/14 7:29 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: Paul, Complementing what Edmon Chung mentioned that root-servers was already reserved in the last new gTLD round, here follows the complete list of reserved names: AFRINIC ... IANA NIC Is "NIC" reserved because that's what Jake Feinler's shop at SRI (

Re: [DNSOP] [dns-operations] hong kong workshop, day 2, live link

Paul, Complementing what Edmon Chung mentioned that root-servers was already reserved in the last new gTLD round, here follows the complete list of reserved names: AFRINIC IANA-SERVERS NRO ALAC ICANN RFC-EDITOR APNIC IESG RIPE ARIN IETF ROOT-SERVERS ASO INTERNIC RSSAC CCNSO INVALID SSAC EXAMPLE

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-00.txt

Re "recursive queries", an interesting thing came up yesterday... http://www.unbound.net/downloads/CVE-2014-8602.txt > Resolvers fetch the content for domain names by sending queries to > authority servers on the internet. One of the responses that authority > servers can return is a referral re

Re: [DNSOP] Application level DNS message fragmentation

the idea is in my opinion relevant, and worthy of pursuit. i have questions of clarification. > Mukund Sivaraman > Monday, December 08, 2014 12:32 AM > ... > > When a server determines that the response doesn't fit into a single > datagram (512 or the client's message size),

Re: [DNSOP] Application level DNS message fragmentation

On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 02:01:13PM +0530, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > than 1<<16 message sizes. Because there is no sequence in UDP, it'd also > need the index and count in every segment/fragment. reliable delivery pgpw2GreS8qmL.pgp Description: PGP signature __

Re: [DNSOP] Application level DNS message fragmentation

Hi Paul On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:08:16PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote: > let's find out: > > http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-vixie-dnsext-edns2/ This draft mentions this feature as TCP only. The use case I was thinking of was in getting DNS messages over UDP through, not larger than 1<<16 me

Re: [DNSOP] Application level DNS message fragmentation

Hi Paul On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 09:53:15PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote: > this was originally proposed in EDNS, but failed to reach consensus. Do you have links to some references so that I can read what was discussed? Mukund pgp5Ih3sh52SY.pgp Description: PGP signature ___