On 17 Aug 2016, at 9:45, 神明達哉 wrote:
I've read draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-07. I think this is a
useful document and is almost ready for publication.
Thanks for the careful review.
But there seem
to be a few non-trivial issues that may need to be addressed.
Specific comments:
- Sect
In message <99ce1d3e-18a0-42e6-949f-e78995afc...@icann.org>, Edward Lewis write
s:
> On 8/16/16, 08:57, "DNSOP on behalf of Tim Wicinski" on behalf of tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've only read briefly the drafts and see hints that issues I raise below
> are still lingering.
>
> There's no de
On 8/19/16, 13:24, "william manning" wrote:
>First off, I take exception to the use of the word "dangerous". AXFR isn't
>dangerous, it's just the best way to do the job. If there are other query
>types that are better (or only) can be done over TCP, then so be it. But they
>aren't per se da
At Wed, 10 Aug 2016 16:54:39 -0700,
"Paul Hoffman" wrote:
> [[ A month later, we're still eager to hear responses to the draft. We
> got a few that we have incorporated for a new version, but want to be
> sure we're on the right track before we move ahead. ]]
> > We understand that "specify more
All
The WGLC last call for resolver-priming has concluded. There was a solid
number of good reviews, and no reasons to not publish this.
I want to thank everyone who gave reviews and feedback. I'm going to go
over the list with the author(s) and make sure everything was covered.
thanks
tim
Patrik,
> On Aug 9, 2016, at 12:06 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
> On 4 Aug 2016, at 18:55, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
For URI records RFC 7553 says they're either named the same as SRV
records, or they use enumservice names from the Enumservice
>>>
>>> Declaring a namespace as the union
On 8/16/16, 08:57, "DNSOP on behalf of Tim Wicinski" wrote:
I've only read briefly the drafts and see hints that issues I raise below are
still lingering.
There's no denying that there's a desire to solve "this". I keep in mind that
this isn't the first time there's been a desire to add this
