Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to h
MS does something in the LDAP backend. It does however show that there is
a need for the functionality.
> On 28 Aug 2018, at 10:04 am, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> How do they handle that?
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 8:02 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> Active directory has each domain controller updating it
How do they handle that?
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 8:02 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> Active directory has each domain controller updating its own SRV record
> on the same tuple. These updates happen at different
> times and need to expire if a domain controller becomes unreachable.
>
> A different c
Active directory has each domain controller updating its own SRV record
on the same tuple. These updates happen at different
times and need to expire if a domain controller becomes unreachable.
A different case is when you have multiple prefixes from different
providers with different lifetimes.
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please re
Sorry, I realized that I accidentally hit "reply" instead of "reply all."
The issue that I raised with Tom is that for the DNSSD SRP use case, the only
names that receive updates from multiple services are service names (IOW, not
service instance names). In the case of SRP, PTR RRs in service
Not true. You have PTR records with the same service name from multiple clients
each with different RDATA and unique timeouts as I demonstrated yesterday in
the example.
Tom
> On Aug 27, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> For service instance names, there is only one service. So there sh
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-13: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please ref
For service instance names, there is only one service. So there shouldn’t
be a problem.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 2:28 PM Tom Pusateri wrote:
> Because even if you add TYPE, you have multiple PTR records (instance
> names) with the same owner name, class, and type that can timeout
> differently.
>
> On Aug 27, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Tom Pusateri wrote:
>
>
> Sorting the timeouts is a good idea.
>
Well, maybe sorting timeouts is a good idea. Depending on how they are
represented internally, it makes no difference. I would like to hear from
implementors whether this even matters.
Thanks,
Because even if you add TYPE, you have multiple PTR records (instance names)
with the same owner name, class, and type that can timeout differently.
Tom
> On Aug 26, 2018, at 11:20 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> If we do that, why do we need a hash at all?
>
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 10:51 PM Mark
> On Aug 26, 2018, at 10:51 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> I would add a covered type field to TIMEOUT (c.f. RRSIG). I also wouldn’t
> have more than
> a single timeout per record. I’m tempted to say a single hash as well. If
> there is multiple
> timeouts per record then the blocks need to b
I’m not sure I understand your comment.
I believe I just showed you how SRP does work in the existing draft. If I’ve
somehow mis-understood how SRP works, please let me know.
Tom
> On Aug 26, 2018, at 10:48 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> SRP has to work. We updated the DNS update lease spec to ac
13 matches
Mail list logo
