On 12/3/2019 5:21 PM, Ralf Weber wrote:
Moin!
On 3 Dec 2019, at 3:15, Michael StJohns wrote:
From 2181:
The TC bit should be set in responses only when an RRSet is required
as a part of the response, but could not be included in its
entirety.
The TC bit should not be set merely be
[JC -- note for you at the very bottom]
On 12/3/19 4:27 PM, Dave Lawrence wrote:
Thank you very much for your review, Adam. I have incorporated your
feedback into the document (which is not yet pushed to datatracker).
Here's the diff:
https://github.com/vttale/serve-stale/commit/3ae0f4e5f79e0
Ralf Weber wrote on 2019-12-03 14:21:
On 3 Dec 2019, at 3:15, Michael StJohns wrote:
...
The way I read this is that setting the bit simply because you
couldn't include diagnostic info is a no-no. Let's not do it.
I disagree. The EDNS0 OPT RRSet is needed and thus if can not be fitted
en
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-serve-stale-09: 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 refer t
Thank you very much for your review, Adam. I have incorporated your
feedback into the document (which is not yet pushed to datatracker).
Here's the diff:
https://github.com/vttale/serve-stale/commit/3ae0f4e5f79e0b326608beaa77b74a1efe62663c
Adam Roach via Datatracker writes:
> The addition of wh
Moin!
On 3 Dec 2019, at 3:15, Michael StJohns wrote:
From 2181:
The TC bit should be set in responses only when an RRSet is
required
as a part of the response, but could not be included in its
entirety.
The TC bit should not be set merely because some extra
information
could h
Hi All,
Based on list feedback and the IETF-106 dnsop meeting, this revision has just
two substantive changes:
- The mnemonic for digest type 1 has been changed to SHA384-SIMPLE (from
SHA384-STABLE).
- The intended status has been changed to Standards Track (from Experimental)
and the Scope o
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 : Message Digest for DNS Zones
Authors : Duane Wessels
Piet Barber
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 1:28 PM Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Just on this point:
>
> > On 2. Dec 2019, at 23:42, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> >
> >> 2) I find the Implementation Status section (8) actually quite
> >> interesting for this document and maybe it should be considered to
> >> kee
Dave Lawrence writes:
> We had a lot of back-and-forth in the working group about
> normative language in this document, and but for the Standards Action
> section.
Huh, I clearly had a slipping brain clutch in the middle of that
sentence when it came to the final phrase. I think I had intended t
Hi Dave,
Just on this point:
> On 2. Dec 2019, at 23:42, Dave Lawrence wrote:
>
>> 2) I find the Implementation Status section (8) actually quite
>> interesting for this document and maybe it should be considered to
>> keep it in the document for final publication.
>
> I personally am in favor
Thank you very much for your review, Mirja.
> 1) It seems to me that this sentence in section 7 should/could
> actually be phrased as a normative requirement in this document: "it
> is not necessary that every client request needs to trigger a new
> lookup flow in the presence of stale data, [...]
> Il 3 dicembre 2019 05:12 Puneet Sood ha
> scritto:
>
> I would support text like the above in section 3.4 to remind operators
> not to put very long text in the EXTRA-TEXT field.
Thinking at how that field could be used in practice for a use case that we
have in mind, I think it would be str
13 matches
Mail list logo
