>draft-pfrc-2181-handling-zone-cuts-00 (isn�t this the basis for the dbound
>work?)
Nope. One of the few things we seem to agree on in the dbound group
is that we're not basing anything on zone cuts.
There may be other reasons to update this part of 2181, but dbound
isn't one.
R's,
John
> the one change i am working on is to obsolete RRsets since they are a primary
> cause of DNS originated DDoS in the Internet.
I thought the primary cause was spoofed source addresses.
Regards,
-drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
(Hats off )
And some of use Rrsets to do things for their employer that is never best
practice, but necessary evils.
Tim
>From my high tech gadget
> On Jul 12, 2015, at 16:40, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2015 23:04, manning wrote:
>> the one change i am working on is to obsolete RRsets
On 11/07/2015 23:04, manning wrote:
> the one change i am working on is to obsolete RRsets since they are a
> primary cause of DNS originated DDoS in the Internet.
How do you propose to do that without completely breaking DNSSEC ?
RRSIGs are calculated over entire RRsets, not RRs.
Ray
_
thank you for your consideration. I know of substantive changes being worked
on for four of the eight independent items collected in RFC 2181.
I believe the other four items in RFC 2181 are unlikely to change. the one
change i am working on is to obsolete RRsets since they are a primary
cause
On 7/10/15 9:06 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Bill,
>
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson
> wrote:
>
>> Question: What sections of 2181 do you see the need to update?
>
> This seems to be the critical question to your chairs and our AD as
> well.
>
> If I understand it correctly, yo
Bill,
In the interests of keeping things simple:
Do you have substantive changes to RFC 2181 to propose for WG consideration at
this time?
If so-- please provide the list with pointers to the relevant internet-drafts.
If not-- I hope that when you do have substantive changes to suggest, you'l
In message <97edc878-847a-4ff3-809a-09606bebf...@karoshi.com>, manning writes:
>
>
> On 10July2015Friday, at 13:12, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>
> >
> >> On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:31 PM, manning wrote:
> >>
> >> I am aware of at least three of the independent ideas in RFC 2181
> that folks are worki
On 10July2015Friday, at 13:12, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>
>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:31 PM, manning wrote:
>>
>> I am aware of at least three of the independent ideas in RFC 2181 that
>> folks are working on:
>>
>> draft-pfrc-2181--naming-issues-00
>> draft-pfrc-2181-handling-zone-cuts-00
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:31 PM, manning wrote:
>
> I am aware of at least three of the independent ideas in RFC 2181 that folks
> are working on:
>
> draft-pfrc-2181--naming-issues-00
> draft-pfrc-2181-handling-zone-cuts-00 (isn’t this the basis for the dbound
> work?)
> draft-pfrc-2181-reso
On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:31 AM, manning wrote:
> Ok, so that is four. The rational for eight is so that nothing gets lost
> and we can garbage collect RFC 2181, moving it to historic.
> Then each idea can progress independently, without the linkage to any of the
> other work and without the vest
I am aware of at least three of the independent ideas in RFC 2181 that folks
are working on:
draft-pfrc-2181--naming-issues-00
draft-pfrc-2181-handling-zone-cuts-00 (isn’t this the basis for the dbound
work?)
draft-pfrc-2181-resource-record-sets-00
draft-pfrc-2181-tc-bit-00
Ok, so that is fou
Bill,
On Jul 10, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> Question:
> What sections of 2181 do you see the need to update?
This seems to be the critical question to your chairs and our AD as well.
If I understand it correctly, your proposed document roadmap has us putting
eight documen
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 2:50 PM, manning wrote:
>
> With the WG Chairs permission.
>
> RFC 2181 is growing a both long in the tooth. It is, by its own admission, a
> collection of eight distinct and independent ideas. As such, it is difficult
> to work on one of
> those ideas without raising
With the WG Chairs permission.
RFC 2181 is growing a both long in the tooth. It is, by its own admission, a
collection of eight distinct and independent ideas. As such, it is difficult
to work on one of
those ideas without raising concerns about all of them. With some coworkers,
we split o
With the WG Chairs permission.
RFC 2181 is growing a both long in the tooth. It is, by its own admission, a
collection of eight distinct and independent ideas. As such, it is difficult
to work on one of
those ideas without raising concerns about all of them. With some coworkers,
we split o
16 matches
Mail list logo
