On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> UI
>
> On Monday, October 10, 2016, Bob Harold wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Just a reminder that the WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
>>> will end later today (barring any stu
John Levine wrote:
> >Should we treat synthesis as if the cache is pretending to be an
> >authoritative server?
>
>
> Yes, although it's kind of subtle.
Yep, that's kind of why I am suggesting a more detailed spec but also
trying to leave as much as possible to the existing intricate
documentati
>Should we treat synthesis as if the cache is pretending to be an
>authoritative server?
>
>e.g. for wildcards and NSEC3, something like,
>
> When synthesizing a wildcard response from its cache, the
> validating resolver MUST include all the records specified in
> RFC 5155 sectio
UI
On Monday, October 10, 2016, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Tim Wicinski > wrote:
>
>>
>> Just a reminder that the WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
>> will end later today (barring any stuck issues). The authors appear to
>> have addressed all open issues
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Just a reminder that the WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
> will end later today (barring any stuck issues). The authors appear to
> have addressed all open issues (except JINMEI's last comments). Please
> read the current ver
Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> >
> > Wildcards
> >
> > Should the box in section 7 say "positive responses" instead of "negative
> > responses"?
> >
> > If so, there should probably also be a cross-ref to RFC 4035 section 5.3.4
> > and RFC 5155 section 8.8 which both discuss validating positive wildcard
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:53:38AM -0400,
> Tim Wicinski wrote
> a message of 17 lines which said:
>
>> Just a reminder that the WGLC for
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse will end later today (barring
>> any stuck issues). The
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> I have read through the draft and sent a pull request with some minor
> editorial fixes.
Thank you. These have been accepted / incorporated.
>
> Here are some more substantial suggestions / questions. Sorry for being so
> late in the process.
>
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Matthijs Mekking
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 06-10-16 08:53, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a reminder that the WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
>>> will end later today (barring any stuck issues)
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06-10-16 08:53, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>
>> Just a reminder that the WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
>> will end later today (barring any stuck issues). The authors appear to
>> have addressed all open issues (except
Tony,
On 06-10-16 13:18, Tony Finch wrote:
I have read through the draft and sent a pull request with some minor
editorial fixes.
Here are some more substantial suggestions / questions. Sorry for being so
late in the process.
Would it make sense to be more specific about how to match queries
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 02:53:38AM -0400,
Tim Wicinski wrote
a message of 17 lines which said:
> Just a reminder that the WGLC for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse will end later today (barring
> any stuck issues). The authors appear to have addressed all open
> issues
The way I underst
I have read through the draft and sent a pull request with some minor
editorial fixes.
Here are some more substantial suggestions / questions. Sorry for being so
late in the process.
Would it make sense to be more specific about how to match queries to
cached NSEC/NSEC3 records? By cross-referen
Hi,
On 06-10-16 08:53, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Just a reminder that the WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
> will end later today (barring any stuck issues). The authors appear to
> have addressed all open issues (except JINMEI's last comments). Please
> read the current version here
14 matches
Mail list logo
