> On 8 Nov 2022, at 10:56, Peter Thomassen wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/8/22 10:33, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Filtering .alt in recursive servers should be a MUST NOT.
>
> Whenever SHOULD or MUST (NOT) is used, or we're making a promise for the
> indefinite future, or we're (in the case of NXDOMAIN sy
On 08.11.22 10:42, Eliot Lear wrote:
> As mentioned in the dnsop meeting the proposed change would be to remove the
> following sentences in Section 2:
>
> OLD:
>
>Alternative namespaces should differentiate themselves from other
>alternative namespaces by choosing a name and using it in
On 11/8/22 10:33, Mark Andrews wrote:
Filtering .alt in recursive servers should be a MUST NOT.
Whenever SHOULD or MUST (NOT) is used, or we're making a promise for the
indefinite future, or we're (in the case of NXDOMAIN synthesis) altering
behavior from the client's perspective (by precl
On 08/11/2022 11.33, Mark Andrews wrote:
Filtering .alt in recursive servers should be a MUST NOT.
[...]
It would be nice to define this *in RFCs* somewhat uniformly for *all*
the different special-use names.
There's this unfortunate conflict between blocking and not blocking:
total prevent
On Tue, 8 Nov 2022, Mark Andrews wrote:
Filtering .alt in recursive servers should be a MUST NOT.
Mirror zones (copies of the root zone) and aggressive negative
caching will reduce the traffic to the root and not break downstream
validating clients.
AS112 is not needed.
I agree. However, doi
As mentioned in the dnsop meeting the proposed change would be to remove
the following sentences in Section 2:
OLD:
Alternative namespaces should differentiate themselves from other
alternative namespaces by choosing a name and using it in the label
position just before the .alt pseudo
Filtering .alt in recursive servers should be a MUST NOT.
Mirror zones (copies of the root zone) and aggressive negative
caching will reduce the traffic to the root and not break downstream
validating clients.
AS112 is not needed.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Aust
