> On Oct 26, 2018, at 15:49, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> [[ I'm sending this to DNSOP because a lot of the people on this list will be
> at IETF 103 in Bangkok ]]
>
> There will be an informal discussion of DNS root KSK futures at IETF 103 on
> Friday, November 9, at 0900 local (Bangkok) time in roo
[[ I'm sending this to DNSOP because a lot of the people on this list will be
at IETF 103 in Bangkok ]]
There will be an informal discussion of DNS root KSK futures at IETF 103 on
Friday, November 9, at 0900 local (Bangkok) time in room Chitlada 3. The
purpose is to allow IETF participants to a
Definitely the text should be correct! :)
We can't suggest using TCP keepalives as an alternative of app layer
keepalives without breaking interop. But I will make another pass at the
document later today to try to address the other points we've discussed.
The discussion about the TCP delayed
Hi Ted,
see inline.
> Am 26.10.2018 um 16:58 schrieb Ted Lemon :
>
> Okay, I'm going to update the document to add a clarification about the
> handling of early data outside of TFO. I think the keepalive issue is a
> matter of judgment, and we would almost have to rewrite the document to
>
Okay, I'm going to update the document to add a clarification about the
handling of early data outside of TFO. I think the keepalive issue is a
matter of judgment, and we would almost have to rewrite the document to
change how that works now. Looking at the MacOS documentation, I can see
ways t
Hi Ted,
please see below.
> Am 26.10.2018 um 15:59 schrieb Ted Lemon :
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:35 AM Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
> wrote:
> I guess you mean RFC8446 :-)
> Yup, sorry.
>
> The table there on p.18 shows only the TLS handshake, there is a TCP
> handshake before that.
>
> I d
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:35 AM Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
wrote:
> I guess you mean RFC8446 :-)
>
Yup, sorry.
> The table there on p.18 shows only the TLS handshake, there is a TCP
> handshake before that.
>
I don't believe this is correct, and given your comment at the end maybe
I'm just misund
Hi Ted,
please see below.
> Am 23.10.2018 um 21:51 schrieb Ted Lemon :
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:02 AM Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
> wrote:
> sorry for the delay, however, as you performed a couple of changes it took me
> a while to re-review. I believe I’m unfortunately not fully ready to r
Ray Bellis wrote:
> On 26/10/2018 12:57, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
> > I'd also like to repeat my previous comment on the BIND example
> > config: Configuring a "static-stub" root zone has some unexpected
> > consequences. It makes the server refuse non-recursive queries for
> > root instead of redirect
On 26/10/2018 12:57, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> I'd also like to repeat my previous comment on the BIND example
> config: Configuring a "static-stub" root zone has some unexpected
> consequences. It makes the server refuse non-recursive queries for
> root instead of redirecting. Not a big problem, but i
Tony Finch writes:
> Ray Bellis wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to see examples of configurations where the local root copy
>> *isn't* on the same host.
>
> It's basically the same as the examples in RFC 7706, but you use the other
> host's address instead of 127.12.12.12. RFC 7706 even says,
>
>The ex
On Oct 26, 2018, at 13:33, Ray Bellis wrote:
> The examples here use a loopback address of 127.12.12.12, but typical
> installations will use 127.0.0.1. The different address is used in
> order to emphasize that the root server does not need to be on the
> device at the name "localhost"
On 26/10/2018 12:14, Tony Finch wrote:
> It's basically the same as the examples in RFC 7706, but you use the other
> host's address instead of 127.12.12.12.
The BIND configuration becomes *much* simpler if you don't try to put
(validating) recursion and root zone copy into the same server.
You j
Ray Bellis wrote:
>
> I'd like to see examples of configurations where the local root copy
> *isn't* on the same host.
It's basically the same as the examples in RFC 7706, but you use the other
host's address instead of 127.12.12.12. RFC 7706 even says,
The examples here use a loopback addres
On 26 Oct 2018, at 10:52, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 12/09/2018 18:57, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings again. One of the things that people said they wanted in
7706bis is more example configurations for different systems. We
currently have:
- BIND 9.9 with views
...
I'll test BIND 9.10 with views to
On 12/09/2018 18:57, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. One of the things that people said they wanted in 7706bis is
> more example configurations for different systems. We currently have:
> - BIND 9.9 with views
> ...
> I'll test BIND 9.10 with views to see if it's the same setup, and also m
16 matches
Mail list logo
