On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Evan Hunt wrote:
I said what now? Had I recently had dental surgery? I don't remember
this.
Sorry about misremembering what you said.
(I do believe an authoritative server should be *able* to operate without
built-in recursive code
But I definitely wouldn't phrase th
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 7:37 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> I think that's a useful mail. So in that sense, I have a question:
> Would you say anything to this, were you in edit mode, on a draft
> going to LC if that draft didn't say it?
>
> If you had a draft requesting a TLD to "exist" in some s
I could take it either way. narrow doc is narrow purpose? don't ref it.
doc is highly visible, will be (mis)interpreted as being relevant?
disavow it (which implies ref it)
doc is highly visible, problem next door? Seek guidance.
-G
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi,
On one specific point:
> On Apr 3, 2017, at 9:02 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
>
> Lastly, I think the IAB note pretty strongly goes to 'we dont do that
> any more' and I think the draft at the bare minimum should say why
> this draft is special, against that letter. You make a compelling a
I think that's a useful mail. So in that sense, I have a question:
Would you say anything to this, were you in edit mode, on a draft
going to LC if that draft didn't say it?
If you had a draft requesting a TLD to "exist" in some sense: in or
not in a registry; passed or not passed into the DNS; de
In response to the latest comments by Paul Hoffman and George Michaelson,
I'd like to offer my $0.02 on the meaning and purpose of the alt TLD vs the
IAB statement.
My read is (whether or not it is correct) that there are three
possibilities for a special name.
The first is, a special but needs D
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2017, at 18:02, George Michaelson wrote:
>
>> The only reference to ICANN delegation process is in an [Ed: note]
>> which feels to me to be wrong: its a first class issue, and should be
>> addressed directly, not as editorial.
>
>
> Th
On 3 Apr 2017, at 18:02, George Michaelson wrote:
The only reference to ICANN delegation process is in an [Ed: note]
which feels to me to be wrong: its a first class issue, and should be
addressed directly, not as editorial.
The note says why the ICANN delegation process is *not* used. As the
The only reference to ICANN delegation process is in an [Ed: note]
which feels to me to be wrong: its a first class issue, and should be
addressed directly, not as editorial.
Secondly, The authors make a judgement call in this block that they
feel requesting delegation is not required. I don't fee
On 3 Apr 2017, at 17:27, George Michaelson wrote:
isn't this OBE and it's alt.arpa now?
No.
Serious question btw. I do not think that this document can proceed
without significant re-drafting to a 2LD if that is the case.
Are you saying that because of:
https://www.iab.org/documents/co
isn't this OBE and it's alt.arpa now?
Serious question btw. I do not think that this document can proceed
without significant re-drafting to a 2LD if that is the case.
G
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 07:20:55PM -0400,
> Suzanne Woolf wrot
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 03:48:49PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> As Evan said, there should not be any code in an authoritative server
> that requires it to do recursive validation.
I said what now? Had I recently had dental surgery? I don't remember
this.
If you mean the comment I made on the A
> -Original Message-
> From: Woodworth, John R
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Finch
> ...
> >
> > So my question is, how does the BULK rewriting system interact
> > with DNS loops? Is there a CPU-eating tarpit in there?
> >
On 4/3/2017 1:00 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
with or without an applicability statement, the underlying message of an rfc
from the dnsop working group is not "we think this is good engineering" but
rather "if you want to do this in a way that interoperates with others who are
also doing it, here is one
On Monday, April 3, 2017 7:48:49 PM GMT Paul Wouters wrote:
> ...
> As Evan said, there should not be any code in an authoritative server
> that requires it to do recursive validation.
in the internet dns as practiced, our choice is not whether an idea thought by
some to be "bad", as in, "a bad i
Hi Dan,
On 3 Apr 2017, at 21:40, Dan York wrote:
I very much like the idea of this draft, given that I use multiple DNS
hosting providers who all have their own unique (and proprietary) way
of doing "CNAME flattening at the apex". I think the reality of
today's user experience with domain nam
On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Dan York wrote:
I very much like the idea of this draft, given that I use multiple DNS hosting
providers who all have their own unique (and proprietary) way of doing
"CNAME flattening at the apex". I think the reality of today's user experience with
domain names is that we
I very much like the idea of this draft, given that I use multiple DNS hosting
providers who all have their own unique (and proprietary) way of doing "CNAME
flattening at the apex". I think the reality of today's user experience with
domain names is that we are increasingly dropping the "www" or
In article you write:
>So I think my conclusion is that ALIAS is both unnecessary and unhelpful
>for RRtypes other than A and .
Depends. If you allow what I described, shadowing records from a
server that thinks it's authoritative from the zone but isn't, it's
definitely useful for MX, possi
Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2017, at 12:10, Tony Finch wrote:
> >
> > Does the more ambitious version use the NSEC rdata format so that you can
> > have different target names for different alias RR types?
>
> I got this question some time ago when I was working on ALIAS for PowerDNS.
> Back
Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> There are PowerDNS ALIAS deployments that signs offline (for some
> stretch of the definition of offline) - every minute. For small zones
> the NOTIFY+XFR overhead is very tolerable, and the public auths do not
> need the private key data.
If you expand ALIAS on the mast
21 matches
Mail list logo
