On 9/24/19 12:36 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Petr Špaček wrote:
>> IMHO the most useful information is dichotomy:
>>
>> a) the problem is local (= call network admin/ISP/telco)
>>
>> b) the problem is remote (= call your bank because their internetbanking
>> broke and _do not your bother ISP_).
> I th
Petr Špaček wrote:
>
> IMHO the most useful information is dichotomy:
>
> a) the problem is local (= call network admin/ISP/telco)
>
> b) the problem is remote (= call your bank because their internetbanking
> broke and _do not your bother ISP_).
I think that's helpful.
There's an interesting ca
On 31. 08. 19 1:27, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Shane Kerr writes:
>
>> While I thought the RCODE linkage was a bit clunky, the idea of having
>> some structure to the response codes was actually kind of nice, for
>> the same reason that the 1xx, 2xx, 3xx, 4xx, 5xx status codes were
>> nice. I think th
Vittorio Bertola writes:
> > Il 10 agosto 2019 20:57 Wes Hardaker ha scritto:
> >
> > 4) Now that this has had multiple implementations (though they'll need
> > to change after the packet format and code changes [that they
> > requested]), this is likely ready for last call after passing throug
Hello,
authentication of blocking decisions is an interesting idea to consider,
though it's probably beyond the scope of this RFC draft. Most
interesting cases can be already covered by securing the channels
between the first resolver that does blocking and the final stub.
On 9/4/19 2:31 PM, Vitt
> Il 10 agosto 2019 20:57 Wes Hardaker ha scritto:
>
> 4) Now that this has had multiple implementations (though they'll need
> to change after the packet format and code changes [that they
> requested]), this is likely ready for last call after passing through
> the document for nits and addr
Shane Kerr writes:
> While I thought the RCODE linkage was a bit clunky, the idea of having
> some structure to the response codes was actually kind of nice, for
> the same reason that the 1xx, 2xx, 3xx, 4xx, 5xx status codes were
> nice. I think the draft is better without using RCODE, but maybe
Wes,
Thanks for the continued work on this draft!
On 10/08/2019 20.57, Wes Hardaker wrote:
internet-dra...@ietf.org writes:
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.
A quick
internet-dra...@ietf.org writes:
> 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.
A quick update on the draft status and what big changes are published in -08:
1) We removed the
