At Tue, 24 Nov 2015 01:28:26 +0530,
Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> > I'm not sure if I understand the concern...do you mean, for example,
> > if an AXFR consists of the following 3 messages:
> >
> > Message1: beginning SOA and some RRs
> > Message2: some intermediate RRs
> > Message3: some more interm
Hi Duane
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 08:25:29PM +, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> TCP preserves the order of delivery, so if the messages are received
> in the order above, it is an AXFR/IXFR protocol violation by the
> server. The server must send Message4 last.
Because 5966bis talks about reordering,
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>
> Hi Jinmei
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:31:23AM -0800, 神明達哉 wrote:
>> At Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:37:48 +0530,
>> Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>>
>>> While looking at a bug last week in an implementation of 5966bis and
>>> AXFR, I found that
Hi Duane
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 07:42:16PM +, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> The document authors have discussed this and we feel the addition of this
> paragraph in section 7 addresses the issue that you've raised:
>
>Note that AXFR [RFC5936] and IXFR [RFC1995] have the property that
>one
Hi Jinmei
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:31:23AM -0800, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:37:48 +0530,
> Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>
> > While looking at a bug last week in an implementation of 5966bis and
> > AXFR, I found that there's no explicit mention of AXFR and out-of-order
> > replies. AXFR
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 8:07 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>
> It seems that AXFR messages would have to be sent in order to avoid
> confusion at the client about when a transfer correctly completed
> vs. when it timed out. While they can be multiplexed with other DNS
> messages, the individual mess
At Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:37:48 +0530,
Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> While looking at a bug last week in an implementation of 5966bis and
> AXFR, I found that there's no explicit mention of AXFR and out-of-order
> replies. AXFR replies [RFC 5936] can arrive in several messages over
> TCP. While 5966bis
At Sun, 22 Nov 2015 14:52:34 +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > I've read draft-bortzmeyer-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-00
>
> Do note that -01 will be out in the next days and there are
> substantial changes. So, readers may prefer to wait 48h :-)
Okay, I'm now referring to 01.
> > I suspect this i
Stephane, Christian,
First-- apologies for being offline much of last week.
On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:08:42PM +0100,
> Christian Grothoff wrote
> a message of 13 lines which said:
>
>> We have solicited but failed to receive any feed
> On Nov 22, 2015, at 9:03 AM 11/22/15, Stephane Bortzmeyer
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 12:08:42PM +0100,
> Christian Grothoff wrote
> a message of 13 lines which said:
>
>> We have solicited but failed to receive any feedback from the dnsop
>> chairs or list on how to improve/revise
Hi all
[sending this to only dnsop@ for our discussion]
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 05:58:08AM -0800, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
> (dnsop) to consider the following document:
> - 'DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements'
The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
(dnsop) to consider the following document:
- 'DNS Transport over TCP - Implementation Requirements'
as Internet Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this actio
Mostly OK, but
>* why SOA records are not usable here
I would remove all of the discussion about SOA. You cannot infer
anything about the structure of the zone from the SOA other than the
obvious fact that the SOA is the root of the zone.
For the cache purges, I'd say that the cache SHOULD purg
13 matches
Mail list logo
