On 11/4/2018 7:08 PM, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 05/11/2018 09:56, Dave Crocker wrote:
So I immediately went to add it and then realized that doing this
cleanly will take an entry for each RR...
Why not this?
++--++
| RR Type | _NODE NAME | REFERENCE
On 05/11/2018 09:56, Dave Crocker wrote:
Clever suggestion. Seems like obvious benefit with no obvious detriment.
So I immediately went to add it and then realized that doing this
cleanly will take an entry for each RR...
Why not this?
++--++
| RR
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 09:56, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> On 11/4/2018 6:28 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
> > One thing I missed earlier (and please forgive me if this was already
> > discussed), was whether or not _example* should be reserved in the
> > table in draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-15#section-4.3.
> >
>
On 11/4/2018 6:28 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
One thing I missed earlier (and please forgive me if this was already
discussed), was whether or not _example* should be reserved in the
table in draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-15#section-4.3.
Basically, is there any value in reserving _example* for future RFCs
Dave (others),
One thing I missed earlier (and please forgive me if this was already
discussed), was whether or not _example* should be reserved in the
table in draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-15#section-4.3.
Basically, is there any value in reserving _example* for future RFCs
to use (ones that don't c
On 11/3/2018 4:55 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
I'm also somewhat confused by the quoting in:
"In the case of the "SRV" "RR" and "URI" "RR", distinguishing among
different types" (and in "defining "RR"s that might" ) - I'm not sure
if it is intentional, but it doesn't align with much of the rest of
Section 4.3 claims RFC7671 reserves "_dane":
" ++--++
| RR Type| _NODE NAME | REFERENCE |
++--++
..
| TLSA | _dane| [RFC7671] |
"
I
I'm also somewhat confused by the quoting in:
"In the case of the "SRV" "RR" and "URI" "RR", distinguishing among
different types" (and in "defining "RR"s that might" ) - I'm not sure if
it is intentional, but it doesn't align with much of the rest of the
formatting, and is (IMO) confusing around
Nit:
Section 1.5:
"For "TXT" records, there is no consistent, internal syntax that to permits
distinguishing among the different uses."
Spurious 'that' or 'to'.
I'm also somewhat confused by the quoting in:
"In the case of the "SRV" "RR" and "URI" "RR", distinguishing among
different types" (and
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
Title : DNS Scoped Data Through "Underscore" Naming of
Attribute Leaves
Author : Dave Crocker
10 matches
Mail list logo
