On 7/6/15, 18:26, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>In message , Edward Lewis writes:
>> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>>
>> (Having quickly scanned through the thread to catch up.)
>>
>> CLASS has been problematic since the start. The first "mistake" made
>>was
>> encoding the CLASS field after the OW
In message <55daa47d-bc41-4416-a7f1-bd21c9dc7...@vpnc.org>, Paul Hoffman writes
:
> On Jul 6, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >> It really doesn't matter if they are "already broken" in your view:
> what matt
> >> ers is creating a protocol that doesn't unnecessarily cause damage to
> the
wang.c...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> Dear Suzanne & Tim,
>
> I have just submitted a new draft which tries to work out how to
> synchronize the RRs information between resolvers and DNS servers.
> The link is as follow and I would like to request a 5-min slot in
> the upcoming f2f meeting. Would you p
In message , Edward Lewis writes:
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
> (Having quickly scanned through the thread to catch up.)
>
> CLASS has been problematic since the start. The first "mistake" made was
> encoding the CLASS field after the OWNER NAME field in a resource record.
> This meant
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : Client Subnet in DNS Queries
Authors : Carlo Contavalli
W
On 7/5/15, 7:26, "DNSOP on behalf of Steve Crocker"
wrote:
>3. (ICANN) Two letter Latin characters that have not yet been assigned by
>the ISO 3166 maintenance agency but might be in the future. Names in
>this subset may move to subset 7 to become active ccTLDs. Examples:
>
> xq
'pq' is
Hi all,
A number of people approached me at DNS-OARC and the RIPE DNS track in
Amsterdam asking what became of this draft, and could we please update
it.
Wes and I finally had some time to work on it in Buenos Aires, after
the ICANN meeting (actually, Wes did the work, I just mumbled and
brought h
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> All
>
> Donald and Mark have worked out the issues on the DNS Cookies draft,
> mostly around the issue of returning an error code (no), and getting an
> official Option-Code (10).
>
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnso
On 06/07/2015 18:04, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation R
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements
Authors : John Dickinson
agreed. while my buddies and I push rocks around, Ed can make sure the
“sleeping[*]” is not wakened. :)
*
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/10099510/Dead-guru-just-sleeping-in-a-freezer
manning
bmann...@karoshi.com
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 6July2015Monday, at
On Jul 6, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> Substantial:
>>
>> In Sections 4.1 and 4.2, it says that the cookies MUST NOT be the same for
>> all recipients. This should be SHOULD NOT, to match the SHOULDs above. If an
>> implementation does a stupid and uses the same cookies everywher
On 06/07/2015 16:42, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Because there are lots of other systems that watch either end. A
> logger that expects a query is the one I am most concerned about, but
> there are probably others as well. I understand that you feel "they
> are broken and we shouldn't care about them"
On Jul 6, 2015, at 8:02 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> It really doesn't matter if they are "already broken" in your view: what matt
>> ers is creating a protocol that doesn't unnecessarily cause damage to the DNS
>> .
>
> How can a intrinsically hop-by-hop "extension" "damage" the protocol?
Because
In message <23a55564-aaf1-4786-9663-c38a019c9...@vpnc.org>, Paul Hoffman writes
:
> On Jul 5, 2015, at 6:16 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> >
> > In message , Paul Hoffman wr
> ites
> > :
> >> Greetings. This is a WG LC review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies, which I had
> no
> >> t looked at carefu
Hi,
I'll just reply where Mark did not:
On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings. This is a WG LC review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies, which I had
> not looked at carefully in some time. In short: it looks great, the document
> is complete and easy-to-read, and we probabl
On 7/6/15 7:25 AM, manning wrote:
> I still need to catch up on the full weekends activity, but I’d like to
> suggest that, like the
> v4/v6 transition, it may be time to consider revisiting the DNS protocols.
> Not that there would
> ever be a DNS EMP, wiping our all legacy code, but perhaps a
Dear Sisyphus[0],
+M[1]
[0] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus
"compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll
back down, repeating this action forever"
[1] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals
"1000"
Yes, the first is Greek, the latter Roman. I can't r
On Jul 5, 2015, at 6:16 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> In message , Paul Hoffman
> writes
> :
>> Greetings. This is a WG LC review of draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies, which I had no
>> t looked at carefully in some time. In short: it looks great, the document is
>> complete and easy-to-read, and we pro
I still need to catch up on the full weekends activity, but I’d like to suggest
that, like the
v4/v6 transition, it may be time to consider revisiting the DNS protocols. Not
that there would
ever be a DNS EMP, wiping our all legacy code, but perhaps a phased migration
to DNSv2 and a
shim to en
(Having quickly scanned through the thread to catch up.)
CLASS has been problematic since the start. The first "mistake" made was
encoding the CLASS field after the OWNER NAME field in a resource record.
This meant that all domain names have to be encoded and treated the same
regardless of class,
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 06:48:18AM +, Evan Hunt wrote:
>
> The remark prefaced with "by convention" doesn't strike me as particularly
> definitive.
I suppose I'd feel better about that if LDH weren't enshrined at least
in operational policies all over the Internet. But I suppose you're
right
22 matches
Mail list logo
