On Jan 16, 2024, at 16:46, Wessels, Duane wrote:
>
> I made a pass through the document and have the following feedback.
Thanks!
>> Priming is described in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 of [RFC1034]. The
>> scenario used in that description, that of a recursive server that is
>> also authoritative,
I made a pass through the document and have the following feedback.
> Priming is described in Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 of [RFC1034]. The
> scenario used in that description, that of a recursive server that is
> also authoritative, is no longer as common.
Since RFC 1034 doesn't use the term "pri
On Jan 16, 2024, at 12:30, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> This is a followup on our Working Group Last Call for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis is ongoing until Monday January 22, 2024.
>
> There has been support for publication, but we are always looking for more
> feedback.
> The comments raised
All
This is a followup on our Working Group Last Call
for draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis is ongoing until Monday January 22, 2024.
There has been support for publication, but we are always looking for more
feedback.
The comments raised appear to have been resolved by the authors. If someone
feels we
It appears that Bellebaum, Thomas said:
>> Without being able to cite chapter and verse of a relevant RFC, I
>> would say that the client (stub resolver?) ought to toss RRsets
>> which are unrelated to the resolution of the original queried-for
>> name.
>
>That is what we would have expected, and
> > Is the client responsible for identifying the requested RRSet
> > or should the resolver only return the records matching the
> > request? E.g. in the example above, should the client return
> > all records in the answer section or just the 1.2.3.4 A record?
>
> Without being able to cite cha
> We have been looking at some DNS resolvers and encountered a question:
>
> When a DNS response contains (in the answer section) records which were
> not requested, how should the resolver react to those and what should
> it return to the requesting client?
>
> For example:
>
> QUESTION:
> example
Hi Warren,
On 15 Jan 2024, at 22:49, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Seeing as the document says you should "expect: flag: aa to be present", it
> does seem like it would be better if it also said: "expect: flag: do to be
> present if an RRSIG is in the response", as that is more inline with what
> so
