Referring only to the question of what was this at last call - -03 was WG
and IESG reviewed. Doing a diff between this -09 and -03 seems to
indicates as much text in the body was changed as was left intact.
Mike
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 07:03 Philip Homburg
wrote:
> > Please note that this
> > d
How about source/sink? Mike
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 21:04 Paul Vixie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 August 2020 23:11:34 UTC Michael De Roover wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Sorry for the late reply.
> > I feel concerned about using the term "responder" for a zone transfer
> > target. Instinctively it makes
Hi -
Do you have any authoritative server operators that have signed on to these
recommendations other than the authors? if not, I’d suggest deferring this
as a WG document pending some buy in from a few ops that are using these
recommendations and can provide some real world context. E.g. how d
Actually, 5.2 suggests that a master file (not zone) should contain a
single class and single SOA record. That’s not the same thing as limiting
a zone to a single class AFAICT.
Mike
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 18:49 Mark Andrews wrote:
> RFC 1035 Section 5.2 limits a zone to be single class.
>
>
