On Apr 16, 2021, at 5:31 AM, Andrew McConachie wrote:
> If I understand section 4.3 correctly, DNSSEC validating stub resolvers
> SHOULD NOT resolve these names. Is that the intention of Section 4.3?
No, definitely not. The text says:
3. Name resolution APIs and libraries SHOULD NOT recogni
Dear Roy, Joe, and Eberhard,
If I understand section 4.3 correctly, DNSSEC validating stub resolvers
SHOULD NOT resolve these names. Is that the intention of Section 4.3?
Why reserve so many names for a singular purpose? If human semantics are
irrelevant then why not just pick a name at rando
On 16/04/2021 09:18, Ray Bellis wrote:
> Yes, that was pretty much it.
>
> Many DNS proxies / ALGs don't inspect the packet contents at all, so a
> stronger generic requirement was not feasible.
FWIW, I have formally requested that the authors withdraw the statement
in the paper's conclusion
On 14/04/2021 10:19, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Regarding dnsop work, the same report suggests to modify RFC 5625 "DNS
> Proxy Implementation Guidelines" to replace the MAY in section 6.3 by
> a MUST. I think that the reason there is currently a MAY is not
> because RFC 5625 finds invalid com
