-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Vixie wrote:
>> From: David Conrad
>> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:45:58 -0700
>>
>> Since time is quite short for folks to upgrade their servers and given
>> some root server operators are financially / operationally / politically
>> constrained in
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:39:31 -0500
> From: Michael Graff
> ...
> since by definition, I always "really need stuff."
+1.
years ago i tried to differentiate between additional data or authority
section data that a requestor could live without, vs. additional data or
authority section data tha
* Paul Vixie:
> since time is short, i would prefer a server-side change, supported by a
> spec change (which means this would head back to namedroppers@) whereby
> (bufsize<1220 && DO=1) would be treated as (DO=0).
And what does the resolver with a trust anchor do with the DO=0
answer? Requery
No hat.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 04:11:26AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> since time is short, i would prefer a server-side change, supported by a
> spec change (which means this would head back to namedroppers@) whereby
> (bufsize<1220 && DO=1) would be treated as (DO=0).
Of course, some have argu
> From: David Conrad
> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:45:58 -0700
>
> Since time is quite short for folks to upgrade their servers and given
> some root server operators are financially / operationally / politically
> constrained in how they would go about doing the upgrade, it seems to me
> that curr
[redirected to DNSOP]
Michael,
On Aug 25, 2009, at 1:50 PM, Michael Graff wrote:
All I'm saying is that I don't want someone to benchmark current DNS
implementations (which are likely optimized only for UDP) and then use
this as proof that the sky is falling.
What would you prefer us benchmar
