On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 6:25 PM Tony Finch wrote:
>
> From my point of view that was the least important part of it,
> an optional extra that might help out CDNs some time in the future,
> and not necessary for deployment. Existing ANAME implementations
> work fine without it.
>
> The ANAME draft
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 16:20 Klaus Malorny wrote:
>
> I asked myself about the status of the two drafts. I got the impression a
> little
> bit that the svcb/httpsvc draft successfully killed the aname draft, but
> is now
> dying slowly itself. It would be great if somebody could give me some
> ins
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 3:12 PM Martin Hoffmann wrote:
> | Abstract:
> |This memo describes a mechanism to publish information related to an
> |entity identified through a domain name via the Domain Name System
> |(DNS). In particular, this mechanism allows publishing the location
> |
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:50 AM Petr Špaček wrote:
>
> Constructing the name from multiple tokens ("SVCB" "-" "HTTPS") will trigger
> all sorts of bugs all over the place. For example the venerable dnspython.org
> library would require rework before it would be able to support the new type
> n
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:39 AM Tommy Pauly
wrote:
>
> Hello DNSOP,
>
> In the interest of getting this spec ready to go, I want to start our
> bikeshed on the RRTYPE name. We need a stable name that we all can live with.
>
> I'll start. Please chime in!
>
> Since it seems that many people like
I believe this has been in a bit stall for some time. I'm finally
trying push for some real production implementations.
I have one note that I wrote when I was initially reading the draft:
- Canonical RR Form comes from RFC 4034 s. 6.2 and it doesn't require
require normalization of SPF and CAA r
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:32 AM zuop...@cnnic.cn wrote:
>
> configure several CNAME records to use multi-CDN service is also widely used
> in industry, though this is not allowed by DNS standards.
> shall we support this on protocal level? like defining new CNAMEx record
> which contains "wei
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:03 PM Tony Finch wrote:
>
> WRT loop detection, it is much easier if the additional section in the
> response from the resolver contains the chain(s). The draft doesn't
> specify that at the moment; maybe it should.
Why is it easier? I would think some people may even wan
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:59 PM Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Thanks to Matthijs Mekking for the good summary this morning. I am happy
> for someone else to take over editorial/authorship duties on the draft.
>
I would be more than happy to help with this draft and to get in
through the process.
___
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 9:20 PM Brian Dickson
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:31 PM Olli Vanhoja wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 7:23 PM Brian Dickson
>> > We need to start with the base requirements, which is, "I want an apex RR
>> &g
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 7:23 PM Brian Dickson
> We need to start with the base requirements, which is, "I want an apex RR
> that allows HTTP browser indirection just as if there was a CNAME there".
> Sibling records do not behave like CNAMEs, no matter what extra hacks get
> applied; CNAME proces
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 5:36 PM Vladimír Čunát wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced that the resolver parts will be important, regardless of
> what exact mechanism will be chosen. My reasoning is that you can't rely on
> any changes there being widely deployed soon, and there might not be enough
> inc
Did someone say that there will be a side meeting about mvp ANAME
during this week? If so, I couldn't find that from the calendar.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 2:19 PM Dave Lawrence wrote:
>
> On the other hand I have direct operational experience that says if a
> problem is being caused not by a generalized DOS or other transient
> network issue, then it can indeed take multiple days to resolve.
> Start of a long weekend? Trying
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 12:48 PM Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Dave Lawrence wrote:
> > Ray Bellis writes:
> > > Serve stael must not become a vector whereby malware can keep its C&C
> > > systems artificially alive even if the parent has removed the C&C domain
> > > name.
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 2:54 PM Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
>
>
> Section 3.2. discussion: Unless there's a potential benefit to non-apex
> ZONEMD records that I'm not seeing, I think it makes sense to forbid them.
> Was there a particular thing that could be enabled by that, which prompted
>
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:14 PM Vittorio Bertola
wrote:
>
> In today's "plain DNS" world, I choose a DNS resolver that provides that kind
> of filters for me, I set it up on my router, and my router pushes it to my
> smart TV via DHCP. What is the "existing configuration mechanism" that allows
I don't like it either because DAO is a well known acronym for Data Access
Object.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 12:49 PM Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 11:46 AM Paul Hoffman
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 24, 2019, at 11:18 AM, bert hubert
>> wrote:
>> > It may be good to add a note that
I support adoption. I can see some good use cases for this and I have
previously worked on a proprietary implementation achieving similar goals
to those that are mentioned in the draft.
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 3:32 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> The chairs feel the document has been updated to addre
If I'm not mistaken, currently the solution used by at least Cloudflare
bootstraps using traditional DNS as the certificate they are using for DoH
is just a standard X.509 certificate issued by DigiCert. I believe you
could just hardcode both the host and IP address on the client side if you
want t
> > The semantics is exactly like a CNAME + HTTP Redirect.
>
> The latter part is what I expected, and why I think it's a non-starter.
>
> HTTP Redirects cause the URI in the address bar to be changed. A lot of
> the whole "CNAME at the Apex" issue arises because lots of marketing
> people don't w
21 matches
Mail list logo
