Hi Tony
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:08:45PM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> * minimal ANAME can be deployed unilaterally on the provisioning side
> * 20 years ago and similar features are widely available (you are
> * ahead of me on this one, John!); if resolvers implement it there
> * will be useful am
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, Tony Finch wrote:
If I look up foo and it has an ANAME to bar, which of these do I get
back?
; ANSWER SECTION
foo. A 1.2.3.4
; ADDITIONAL SECTION
foo. ANAME bar.
bar. A 1.2.3.4
The model is that this is a replacement for manually copying address records,
with added hint
> On 19 Sep 2018, at 21:14, John Levine wrote:
> If I look up foo and it has an ANAME to bar, which of these do I get
> back?
; ANSWER SECTION
foo. A 1.2.3.4
; ADDITIONAL SECTION
foo. ANAME bar.
bar. A 1.2.3.4
The model is that this is a replacement for manually copying address records,
with
In article you write:
>Authoritative servers / zone transfers
>--
>
>No special new behaviour.
>
>
>Additional section processing
>-
>
>This applies to auth and rec servers. In response to an A / /
>ANAME query, include any sibli
Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> The design goals of a solution in this space should be:
>
> - Fully supports DNSSEC
> - Does not require AUTH server changes other then supporting a new
> RRTYPE presentation / wire format and/or serving a new RRTYPE as
> Additional Data.
> - All optimization work is do
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, Paul Vixie wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:
Anthony Eden wrote:
FWIW, there's still always
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dnsop-eden-alias-rr-type/
I get the impression that a lot of the objection to the current ANAME
draft is that it specifies that auth servers d
Tony Finch wrote:
Anthony Eden wrote:
FWIW, there's still always
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dnsop-eden-alias-rr-type/
I get the impression that a lot of the objection to the current ANAME
draft is that it specifies that auth servers do ANAME target lookups and
record substitut
Anthony Eden wrote:
> FWIW, there's still always
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dnsop-eden-alias-rr-type/
I get the impression that a lot of the objection to the current ANAME
draft is that it specifies that auth servers do ANAME target lookups and
record substitution; your draft says
FWIW, there's still always
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dnsop-eden-alias-rr-type/ (also
available at https://github.com/aeden/alias-rr-type) which can be revived
if there is interest.
Sincerely,
Anthony Eden
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:56 AM Tony Finch wrote:
> I think there's still a
I think there's still a need to standardize ANAME, to provide at least
some level of zone file portability between the various existing
proprietary versions of this feature. And to provide something usable
by zone publisters on a much shorter timescale than a nsa SRV-alike.
So here's a sketch of a
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 09:48:18AM +0200, Petr Špaček wrote:
>
>
> On 19/09/2018 09:31, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 09:05:21AM +0200, Petr Špaček wrote:
> >> On 18/09/2018 22:02, JW wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Original message
> >>> From: Mark Andrews
> >>>
> >>>
On 19/09/2018 09:31, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 09:05:21AM +0200, Petr Špaček wrote:
>> On 18/09/2018 22:02, JW wrote:
>>>
>>> Original message
>>> From: Mark Andrews
>>>
I would also expect a relatively large client population using SRV records
> On 19 Sep 2018, at 5:26 pm, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 07:24:25AM +1000,
> Mark Andrews wrote
> a message of 38 lines which said:
>
>> As for scripts, you upgrade the tools those scripts use:
>> curl(libcurl), wget, fetch for SH. File::Fetch for perl. Similar
>
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 09:05:21AM +0200, Petr Špaček wrote:
> On 18/09/2018 22:02, JW wrote:
> >
> > Original message
> > From: Mark Andrews
> >
> >> I would also expect a relatively large client population using SRV records
> >> given the rate Firefox and Chrome browsers are
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 07:24:25AM +1000,
Mark Andrews wrote
a message of 38 lines which said:
> As for scripts, you upgrade the tools those scripts use:
> curl(libcurl), wget, fetch for SH. File::Fetch for perl. Similar
> for the other scripting languages. Very few applications actually
> ma
On 18/09/2018 22:02, JW wrote:
>
> Original message
> From: Mark Andrews
>
>> I would also expect a relatively large client population using SRV records
>> given the rate Firefox and Chrome browsers are upgraded. SRV lookups
>> work for lots ofother protocols. SRV records als
16 matches
Mail list logo
