All,
Thanks for the lively discussion on this point….after reviewing the thread, the
editors, the chairs, and the AD (Warren) felt that there was consensus support
for the new language proposed by the editors defining “class," but controversy
about the additional language proposed by Paul.
Rat
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
Title : DNS Query Name Minimisation to Improve Privacy
Authors : Stephane Bortzmeyer
神明達哉 wrote:
>
> Whether we *SHOULD* (rather than MAY) allow the conventional response
> in case of TCP is a different question, on which I don't have a strong
> opinion.
I think at the moment it is mostly harmless and sometimes helpful for
debugging or inspection - e.g. `dig` switches to TCP by d
On 14.09.18 00:55, Mark Andrews wrote:
I was testing TSIG with a well known key against TLD servers and got the
following response. Once you get past the bad class field (reported to the
operator) there were a
number of other items:
* the tsig name does not match the request.
* the algorithm
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a n
