> On 22 Oct 2024, at 5:18 PM, Tobias Fiebig wrote:
>
>>
>> it seems odd to me to recommend that auth DNS servers should take
>> steps to avoid fragmentation of responses (sec 4.1) while no such
>> recommendation exists for recursive resolvers (sec 4.2). To avoid the
>> issues with fragmentatio
>
> it seems odd to me to recommend that auth DNS servers should take
> steps to avoid fragmentation of responses (sec 4.1) while no such
> recommendation exists for recursive resolvers (sec 4.2). To avoid the
> issues with fragmentation and IPv6 the measures proposed in draft-
> ietf-dnsop-avoid-
Moin,
Thanks for the feedback. I already integrated these changes in a local
copy.
With best regards,
Tobias
On Mon, 2024-10-21 at 17:10 +, Tommy Jensen wrote:
> I'm happy to see 3901 being updated and this draft getting updated
> from list discussion. Having read through the previous list
>
All
After much badgering, the authors have updated this document, addressing
very useful comments from Duane Wessels (thank you!) and useful and
poignant comments from Benjamin Kaduk's secdir review (still work through
those).
There is one outstanding issue which will be on the agenda in Monday's
Hi,
I have posted a revision of the new TKEY draft which includes an
Elliptic Curve DH mode and expect to present on it in Dublin. See
oldish thread with subject "TKEY and MD5".
Thanks,
Donald
===
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle,
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dnsop-domain-verification-techniques-06.txt is now
available. It is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations (DNSOP) WG
of the IETF.
Title: Domain Control Validation using DNS
Authors: Shivan Sahib
Shumon Huque
Paul Wouters
Hiya,
I had a quick scan and have a couple of initial questions:
I'm working on [1] so wonder if/how those may be related, any
idea? If not, should they be?
I'm also not clear on the status of this - is this a case of
wanting to get something long-used under IETF change control
or something el
Thanks Shumon for picking up the WG comments. Could those who commented on the
WGLC please review the new draft and see if it answers your concerns?
The chairs have revised the WGLC discussion and the draft history, and we find
consensus to advance it for publication, subject to incorporating WG
> On 22 Oct 2024, at 4:10 AM, Tommy Jensen
> wrote:
>
> I'm happy to see 3901 being updated and this draft getting updated from list
> discussion. Having read through the previous list discussion, I don't have
> additional feedback of substance other than "this is worth working on and I
> w
Hey dnsop,
At IETF 120, we discussed a -00 about client auth recommendations for
encrypted DNS. The chairs and ADs got together and decided that it belonged
in the uta WG, where we just posted it with a new co-author (welcome, Joe!).
Please join the conversation there, or discuss here also I gu
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-03.txt is now available. It
is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF.
Title: Generalized DNS Notifications
Authors: Johan Stenstam
Peter Thomassen
John Levine
Name:draft-ietf
I'm happy to see 3901 being updated and this draft getting updated from list
discussion. Having read through the previous list discussion, I don't have
additional feedback of substance other than "this is worth working on and I
would support adoption if a CfA occurred".
Minor suggested edits: (
Hi,
I've begun AD Sponsoring:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kowalik-domainconnect/
This document has previously been discussed in both REGEXT and DNSOP, I've
included some references in the data tracker history if you are interested.
I'm seeking a document shepherd volunteer, please mes
Hi,
On 2024-10-21 15:53 UTC, Tommy Jensen
wrote:
> Hey Florian,
>
> Thank you for the feedback, and thank you for sharing your draft. My main
> concern with your -00 is the introduction of yet another mechanism for
> discovering the prefix:
>
> The DNS resolver MAY return an IPv6 prefix
Hey Florian,
Thank you for the feedback, and thank you for sharing your draft. My main
concern with your -00 is the introduction of yet another mechanism for
discovering the prefix:
The DNS resolver MAY return an IPv6 prefix or a comma separated
list of prefixes to indicate not jus
On 2024-09-09 17:51 -05, Nick Buraglio wrote:
> dnsop folks,
>
> Based on some conversations and discussions at the end of the second
> session at 120, several of us worked out a draft to address what we believe
> are some notable details in RFC7050. This draft was just submitted to the
> datatrac
Moin,
we just submitted a new iteration of the below draft, addressing the
comments Geoff and Mike posted earlier.
Specifically:
- Mention RFC7766, expand on fragmentation
- Fixed use of the term 'iterative name server' to 'recursive DNS
resolver'
- Implement phrasing suggestion by Geoff
- Cha
17 matches
Mail list logo
