The plan in this draft is that NS2 would eventually replace NS records.
if so there's a much larger set of changes we'd have to consider. for one
thing NS2 should be slabbed (one record containing a compound rdata set); for
another it would have to incorporate what DS does now (also as a slab).
On Wednesday, 15 April 2020 15:16:20 UTC John Levine wrote:
> In article <060513e7-742d-6de9-cf16-c367fbb13...@redbarn.org> you write:
> >...
> >
> >so instead of example.com DS, it should have been example._dnssec.com DS.
>
> I take your point but I have a question and a half.
>
> The plan in th
Paul Hoffman wrote on 2020-04-15 09:51:
On Apr 15, 2020, at 7:08 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
Since this is a one line RFC change of an erroneous omission of
text , could it be done as an errata instead?
No. It is not an error in the spec that someone noticed 30 years
later: it is an operatio
On Apr 15, 2020, at 7:08 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>
> Since this is a one line RFC change of an erroneous omission of text , could
> it be done as an errata instead?
No. It is not an error in the spec that someone noticed 30 years later: it is
an operational observation followed by implement
In article <060513e7-742d-6de9-cf16-c367fbb13...@redbarn.org> you write:
>today it was proposed that NS2 be added as a new record-set type that
>could exist in either the parent or the child, similar to NS, and
>reminding several of us about the DS debacle. ...
>so instead of example.com DS, it
Since this is a one line RFC change of an erroneous omission of text , could it
be done as an errata instead?
How widespread is this broken behaviour ?
Paul
>
> On Apr 15, 2020, at 03:13, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> This is a long standing issue. While rare it needs to be addressed by all
>
Dear all,
This is the new catalog zones draft as presented yesterday at the DNSOP
WG Interim meeting. The idea of catalog zones is to establish automatic
zone provisioning along existing primary/secondary relationships.
This is an earlier idea which was previously worked on by ISC authors.
The ed
Moin!
On 14 Apr 2020, at 17:47, Tim Wicinski wrote:
This starts a Call for Adoption for
draft-fujiwara-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation
The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation/
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable
DNS friends,
On 14/04/2020 17.43, Paul Vixie wrote:
today it was proposed that NS2 be added as a new record-set type that
could exist in either the parent or the child, similar to NS, and
reminding several of us about the DS debacle.
DS should never have been placed at the delegation point, a
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 08:24:20PM -0400,
Paul Wouters wrote
a message of 108 lines which said:
> > I'm still not able to understand this. Suppose nic.footld puts a
> > statement for humans on their website that says ".footld promises
> > to be delegation-only".
>
> First, this approach does
This is a long standing issue. While rare it needs to be addressed by all
vendors. BIND sets TC=1
when it can’t fit any glue records in and if a glue record matches the qname it
chooses that. Before
anyone complains that I’ve listed a response from .GOV servers they where
informed years ago a
11 matches
Mail list logo
