We'd end up adding stuff to a response in order to make it shorter.
Is there a clear benefit (shorter responses)? Can you show me a few real world
examples?
Thanks
Roy
> On 8 Dec 2015, at 20:37, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> In message , Paul Wouters
> wr
> ites:
>>
>>> Subject: Re: [DNSOP]
In message , Paul Wouters wr
ites:
>
> > Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Question on RRtypes in RFC 4034 Section 6.2
>
> Thanks everyone for the useful comments. It's all clear to me now.
>
> Paul
Additionally if we ever wanted to enable compression for new types
we could use EDNS to signal that the clie
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Question on RRtypes in RFC 4034 Section 6.2
Thanks everyone for the useful comments. It's all clear to me now.
Paul
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Paul Wouters wrote:
> d) Does this need updating or an errata?
It was already updated, in RFC 6840 §5.1.
--
Robert Edmonds
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
At Tue, 8 Dec 2015 14:11:16 +0100,
Shane Kerr wrote:
> As I mentioned a while ago, we have been working on a document to
> describe the various ways of (ab)using HTTP to transmit DNS traffic. We
> have finished a -00 draft, and I would appreciate it if you had a look
> and see if it makes sense.
At Mon, 07 Dec 2015 11:07:59 -0800,
The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Domain Name System Operations WG
> (dnsop) to consider the following document:
> - 'Client Subnet in DNS Queries'
>as Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, a
On 8 Dec 2015, at 15:09, Paul Wouters wrote:
Hi,
Section 6.2 of 4034 talks about canonicalization of the RR Form
Item 3 states:
3. if the type of the RR is NS, MD, MF, CNAME, SOA, MB, MG, MR, PTR,
HINFO, MINFO, MX, HINFO, RP, AFSDB, RT, SIG, PX, NXT, NAPTR, KX,
SRV, DNAME, A6, RR
Existing signers and validators won't know the internal format of future rr
types.
On December 8, 2015 10:09:06 AM EST, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>Section 6.2 of 4034 talks about canonicalization of the RR Form
>
>Item 3 states:
>
>3. if the type of the RR is NS, MD, MF, CNAME, SOA, MB, MG,
The reasoning is in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3597
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Section 6.2 of 4034 talks about canonicalization of the RR Form
>
> Item 3 states:
>
> 3. if the type of the RR is NS, MD, MF, CNAME, SOA, MB, MG, MR, PTR,
>HINFO, MI
Hi,
Section 6.2 of 4034 talks about canonicalization of the RR Form
Item 3 states:
3. if the type of the RR is NS, MD, MF, CNAME, SOA, MB, MG, MR, PTR,
HINFO, MINFO, MX, HINFO, RP, AFSDB, RT, SIG, PX, NXT, NAPTR, KX,
SRV, DNAME, A6, RRSIG, or NSEC, all uppercase US-ASCII letters
DNS colleagues,
As I mentioned a while ago, we have been working on a document to
describe the various ways of (ab)using HTTP to transmit DNS traffic. We
have finished a -00 draft, and I would appreciate it if you had a look
and see if it makes sense.
If the working group thinks that it makes sen
11 matches
Mail list logo
