Michael StJohns wrote on 2020-01-15 17:28:
... I think its a co-existence issue here. I don't think you should
have two different (calculation-wise) ZONEMD-like RRSets in the same
zone for the reasons you've mentioned. I don't think that reserving RR
types is the right way of doing things
On Jan 15, 2020, at 5:28 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> I think its a co-existence issue here. I don't think you should have two
> different (calculation-wise) ZONEMD-like RRSets in the same zone for the
> reasons you've mentioned.
That makes good sense. When someone defines an incremental zon
On 1/15/2020 1:25 PM, Brian Dickson wrote:
I don't disagree with the notion of a strong differentiator between
ZONEMD and any other digest, either using RRTYPE or with an
underscore-prefix name.
However, there is a Heisenberg problem, which is that any other digest
type needs to be excluded f
> On Jan 15, 2020, at 10:25 AM, Brian Dickson
> wrote:
>
> However, there is a Heisenberg problem, which is that any other digest type
> needs to be excluded from the ZONEMD calculation (and vice versa).
>
> So, from the future-proofing standpoint, I think one of the two methods needs
> to
> On Jan 15, 2020, at 12:14 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
> Duane,
>
> Honestly thinking about it more, I'm not even sure we should consider
> supporting an incremental version of zone digests in ZONEMD at all.
I could be easily convinced to take that route.
The first few revisions of the draft w
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 7:06 AM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2020, at 12:14 AM, Shane Kerr
> wrote:
> >
> > Duane,
> >
> > On 13/01/2020 19.26, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> >>> On Jan 8, 2020, at 3:55 PM, Michael StJohns
> wrote:
> >>> There's also the case that future ZONEMD schemes may need a
Took a look at the diff. I believe this resolves all my previous concerns.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:11 PM wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
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 : Extended DNS Errors
Authors : Warren Kumari
Evan Hunt
Michael StJohns writes:
> In the querying EDNS0 set a bit (EDERequested) that says "Consider EDE
> as 'important' in the response
We've discussed extra bits like this in the past and it was generally
decided to leave it as simple as possible. I don't see anyone else
agreeing with you (yet), so
Eric Orth writes:
> Here is the text I suggested on 2019-12-02: "Long EXTRA-TEXT fields may cause
> truncation and bad
> resolve performance, which is usually undesirable for the supplemental nature
> of EDE. Operators
> setting the field SHOULD avoid setting unnecessarily long contents,
> esp
On Jan 15, 2020, at 12:14 AM, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
> Duane,
>
> On 13/01/2020 19.26, Wessels, Duane wrote:
>>> On Jan 8, 2020, at 3:55 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>> There's also the case that future ZONEMD schemes may need a different
>>> format for the digest field. E.g. one approach to dea
Duane,
On 13/01/2020 19.26, Wessels, Duane wrote:
On Jan 8, 2020, at 3:55 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
There's also the case that future ZONEMD schemes may need a different format
for the digest field. E.g. one approach to dealing with incremental changes
is to have a NSEC like ZONEMD re
12 matches
Mail list logo
