On 24 Feb 2016, at 23:24, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> Ben Campbell writes:
>> I agree with Stephen's DISCUSS, and his comment about mentioning that
>> this documents rather than recommends existing behavior in the abstract.
>> (Or at least closer to the beginning of the introduction.)
>
> Do the change
Hi David,
All of those changes look good to me. Happy to clear the discuss
when you post -07.
Cheers,
S.
On 25/02/16 01:12, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> Stephen Farrell writes:
>> Section 11.3, I like that we're recommending that ECS be
>> disabled by default, but want to check one thing. This says:
root zone size is much smaller than TLD, and RR has long ttl.
NSEC is satisfied.
Warren Kumari 于2016年2月25日周四 下午12:58写道：
> Dear DNSOP,
>
> We have recently updated "Believing NSEC records in the DNS root" (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-cheese-shop-01).
>
> This incorporates s
Ben Campbell writes:
> I agree with Stephen's DISCUSS, and his comment about mentioning that
> this documents rather than recommends existing behavior in the abstract.
> (Or at least closer to the beginning of the introduction.)
Do the changes that I indicated in my response to Stephen work for
yo
Alissa Cooper writes:
> I support Stephen's DISCUSS point. My assumption in reading the
> recommendation is that all recursive resolvers are recommended to disable
> ECS by default.
Please confirm that this new paragraph at the end of the privacy
section, written in response to Stephen's message,
>For these reasons we think that it is worth pursuing this in parallel
>with Fujiwara-san's "Aggressive use of NSEC/NSEC3" document.
>cheese-shop does not conflict with "Aggressive use...", rather it
>complements it, and can demonstrate the technique (in this restricted use
>case).
>
>We welcome a
Dear DNSOP,
We have recently updated "Believing NSEC records in the DNS root" (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dnsop-cheese-shop-01).
This incorporates some comments, but also does a better job of explaining
the technique, what the benefits are, and why we are only handling the
special
Stephen Farrell writes:
> Section 11.3, I like that we're recommending that ECS be
> disabled by default, but want to check one thing. This says:
> "Due to the high cache pressure introduced by ECS, the feature
> SHOULD be disabled in all default configurations." Does that
> mean that all servers
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'The edns-tcp-keepalive EDNS0 Option'
(draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-06.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Domain Name System Operations Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Benoit Claise and Joel Jaeggli.
