Tony I think my perspective is mainly from a CPE implementers point of
view. Implementations are done by many third parties some who work with
operators and some who do not. Guidance in a single document would be
valuable.
John
+1-484-962-0060
-Original Message-
From: Tony Finch on
Shane Kerr wrote:
> The other document describes our specific implementation, which sits
> kind of in the middle of the the previous document, using DNS packets
> sent in wire format via application/octet-stream. While of less general
> interest, probably this is more important to standardize for
>
Hi Shane
We've been using our implementation of DNS over HTTP for about 2 years ( Of
course not in RESTFUL style, just some rough plain text format ).
So I strongly support working on this draft to help standardize this kind
of DNS service.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:08 PM, George Michaelson wrot
\o/
-G
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Shane Kerr
wrote:
> All,
>
> At BII we have been working on a couple of drafts that might be of
> interest to the dnsop working group. We are happy to work them through
> as independent submissions, but if there is interest in the working
> group then we a
All,
At BII we have been working on a couple of drafts that might be of
interest to the dnsop working group. We are happy to work them through
as independent submissions, but if there is interest in the working
group then we are also happy to do the work here.
Sorry we don't have the drafts submi
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:39:58PM +0900,
Tim WIcinski wrote
a message of 126 lines which said:
> this is not so much a DNSOP document, but something that should be
> in an area where they need a better understanding of DNS (*cough*
> appsawg *cough*).
>
> How does the working group think of
On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 03:06:04AM -0500,
Warren Kumari wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
> The chairs also asked for volunteers for the design team on October
> 8th; a number of people volunteered - it would be nice to know what
> happened with that.
>
>
> Sorry for sounding frustrate
draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-00 raises several issues,
some are non-issues, some, if accepted, may deserve a 6761bis and some
do not.
1) "The discussions in the DNSOP WG and the IETF Last Call processes
about the .onion registration in the Special Use Domain Names registry
(1,200 messa
On 11/3/15, 18:13, "DNSOP on behalf of Suzanne Woolf"
wrote:
>Agree with Joel here— there’s useful review for it in DNSOP *and*
>elsewhere IMHO.
>
>Ed?
The document has three goals:
1) Define Domain Names
2) Develop "helper" terminology to go along with the concept
3) Perhaps, if this is not inc
I have also read the draft and support it.
Scott
On 31 Oct 2015, at 18:18, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
Joe,
Thanks for the update.
Those of you who supported publication— I assume Joe will be
reminding you to review :-)
best,
Suzanne
On Oct 31, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
Hi,
Just a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi Joe,
I have reviewed the document, and I support it.
section 1. s/complimentary/complementary/
section 4.3. Unbound's implementation currently only accepts trust
anchors after the validFrom has passed and not during
add-hold-down-time before.
> On Nov 3, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Alain Durand wrote:
>>
>> In the particular case of the communication between the CPE and the ISP
>> DNS recursive resolver, the two parties are within the same administrative
>> authority. Thus, the need to make a BCP is much lower. This ca
Alain Durand wrote:
>
> In the particular case of the communication between the CPE and the ISP
> DNS recursive resolver, the two parties are within the same administrative
> authority. Thus, the need to make a BCP is much lower. This can be seen
> as simply an implementation issue.
But there nee
Hi 6man, 6lo and dnsop folks,
There will be a talk about IoT DNS Name Autoconfiguration
in 6man WG's morning session tomorrow, 11/4/2015.
Title: DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Internet of Things Devices
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-6man-iot-dns-autoconf-00
I hope we discuss how to con
> On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:41 AM, Ebersman, Paul
> wrote:
>
>
> On 03Nov, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
>
>> In the particular case of the communication between the CPE and the ISP
>> DNS recursive resolver, the two parties are within the same administrative
>> authority. Thus, the need
Agree with Joel here— there’s useful review for it in DNSOP *and* elsewhere
IMHO.
Ed?
> On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>
> I think the dicussion of names is useful and insightful.
>
> we can find a home for it I'm pretty sure but I'm happy to see
> discussion of it.
>
> joel
I think the dicussion of names is useful and insightful.
we can find a home for it I'm pretty sure but I'm happy to see
discussion of it.
joel
On 11/3/15 4:39 PM, Tim WIcinski wrote:
>
> I spoke to Ed this morning during breakfast, and we discussed his
> draft. I do like this as a well written
On 03Nov, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
> In the particular case of the communication between the CPE and the ISP
> DNS recursive resolver, the two parties are within the same administrative
> authority. Thus, the need to make a BCP is much lower. This can be seen
> as simply an implemen
I thought about it and re-read what we wrote in 3901.
3901 talks about servers that need to deal with other parties: recursive
resolvers and zone servers. It provides guidelines for the stability of
entire DNS system.
In the particular case of the communication between the CPE and the ISP
DNS rec
19 matches
Mail list logo
