In message <-4512598740891104712@unknownmsgid>, Joe Abley writes:
> At a guess I would imagine that the widespread interest in the most
> recent BIND9 assertion failures with TKEY queries have caused code to
> be upgraded everywhere. Some older versions of BIND9 followed the
> pre-6891 specificati
> On 9 Aug 2015, at 01:11, manning
> there are other DNS Kill Switches still out there.
Yeah? Which ones?
Roy
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Causing a shutdown does not automatically Force an upgrade…
And you are correct, there are other DNS Kill Switches still out there. One
has to wonder if they are coding oversights or deliberate inclusions.
/bill
On 8August2015Saturday, at 16:29, Joe Abley wrote:
> At a guess I would imagin
At a guess I would imagine that the widespread interest in the most
recent BIND9 assertion failures with TKEY queries have caused code to
be upgraded everywhere. Some older versions of BIND9 followed the
pre-6891 specification for unknown EDNS types; perhaps that has had a
positive impact on Mark's
You may be correct. The subject suggests TLD servers and their upstreams
block EDNS(1) (was this a considered choice or an implementation artifact)
and there has been a reduction in blocking at the server level. Unclear if
this is a deliberate choice or an upgrade artifact that the server admi
Hi Bill,
Not sure what you mean. Wasn't the point of Mark's email roughly the
opposite of what you said?
Compliance with EDNS(0) presumably means compliance with RFC 6891.
That specification includes handling of unknown EDNS options.
Joe
Aue Te Ariki! He toki ki roto taku mahuna!
> On Aug 8,
Of course this means that EDNS, for all its promise as an extension to allow
for more flags/signaling is effectively dead, since anything other than EDNS(0)
will now be blocked. Not sure I agree that EDNS compliance is identical to
EDNS(0) compliance.
manning
bmann...@karoshi.com
PO Box 6151
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015, Mark Andrews wrote:
As of the 8th of August there was a big reduction in the
number of TLD zones which filtered queries with unknown
EDNS version or unknown EDNS flags.
While there is still work to do to improve EDNS compliance
this is
As of the 8th of August there was a big reduction in the
number of TLD zones which filtered queries with unknown
EDNS version or unknown EDNS flags.
While there is still work to do to improve EDNS compliance
this is a big step forward. Thank you.
Hi Jinmei,
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:40 PM, 神明達哉 wrote:
> ...
>
> I've read draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies-05 (a post-WGLC version).
>
> It basically looks good to me to ship: I agree the idea is at least
> worth trying, and I see the document is generally well written.
Thank you.
> I have some commen
> On Aug 7, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> … the documents I have access to do not give me a deep enough sense
> of, well, why the names are different from DNS domain names. I presume
> they are from the email discussion, but what I am reading in the documents
> - and I stress "reading
11 matches
Mail list logo
