On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:51:11PM -0700,
Shay C wrote
a message of 59 lines which said:
> Forgive me, but I'm not clear if the WALLET RRtype is a proposal or if it
> has been ratified. I see references to it in the IANA registry so I'm
> assuming it has been assigned and is currently usable?
I think a WALLET RRtype extension would not change the need for
some defining of the wallet mapping, as well as placing the requirement for
authentication based on DNSSEC. There is an advantage of not overloading
the TXT RRtype which has been used as a catch-all.
Forgive me, but I'm not clear if
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:09:12PM -0700,
Shay C wrote
a message of 53 lines which said:
> I was hoping to get feedback on an RFC draft I have been working on for
> web3 wallet mapping using DNSSEC and the DNS system.
It would be interesting to discuss the relationship with the existing
WALLE
Hello all,
Here is the first submission
https://datatracker.ietf.org/submit/status/145663/
I was hoping to get feedback on an RFC draft I have been working on for
web3 wallet mapping using DNSSEC and the DNS system. I have tried to keep
it very standard, just defining the mapping scheme without
confirm
___
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
Shumon Huque writes:
> Yes, and more specifically, to quote the RFC, they aren't allowed to
> modify DNS protocol processing:
True, but debugging tools may be able to use the machine readable codes
as trigger points for diving into further analysis or as a hint for what
other fields might be rel
Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> But there is another question: should we try to save codepoint space
> by using the same EDE for many different uses (and using the extra text
> to demultiplex) or should we use the fact that the registration policy
> is quite open to register many codes? RFC 8914, s
On 17. 09. 24 15:57, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 03:16:43PM +0200,
Petr Špaček wrote
a message of 30 lines which said:
I think EDE 29 (Synthesized) with text note "RFC 8482" is perfectly
appropriate for the made-up HINFO answer to ANY (or RRSIG or ...) query.
I ten
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 03:16:43PM +0200,
Petr Špaček wrote
a message of 30 lines which said:
> I think EDE 29 (Synthesized) with text note "RFC 8482" is perfectly
> appropriate for the made-up HINFO answer to ANY (or RRSIG or ...) query.
I tend to disagree since RFC 8482 is about removing da
On 16. 09. 24 18:36, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 06:08:10PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 08:23:43AM -0700,
Wes Hardaker wrote
a message of 38 lines which said:
* One to say that the response was deliberately minimal (RFC 8482)
For #1 - a m
10 matches
Mail list logo
