Re: [DNSOP] DNS terminology: "In-bailiwick response", "Out-of-bailiwick response"

Paul Hoffman wrote: > Further, I disagree with this being about "deeming". There is a > simple rule (the owner name is a subzone of the answer), whereas > "deeming" indicates that there might be other logic that is not > given here. Bailiwick checking is not checking that the owner name is a "subz

Re: [DNSOP] A short note on the DNSOP agenda....

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 08:19:16PM +, Tim Wicinski wrote a message of 16 lines which said: > We've been hammering out the agenda, and we've got more requests than we > have time. We're focusing on working group items; heavy discussion items on > the mailing list; and other specific items w

Re: [DNSOP] remarks on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-01

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi Paul, On 18/03/15 09:59, Paul Vixie wrote: >> Stub and recursive resolvers MUST be able to process responses >> that arrive in a different order to that in which the requests >> were sent, regardless of the transport protocol in use. > > this do

Re: [DNSOP] DNS terminology: "In-bailiwick response", "Out-of-bailiwick response"

Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > What's tricky here is that the bailiwick-ness of something is only > relevant given a response. My understanding is that "bailiwick" was originally applied to the DNS by djb. By his definition, bailiwicks are about how delegations are set up; they are a property of the

Re: [DNSOP] DNS terminology: "In-bailiwick response", "Out-of-bailiwick response"

> Tony Finch > Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:23 AM > > My understanding is that "bailiwick" was originally applied to the DNS by > djb. By his definition, bailiwicks are about how delegations are set up; > they are a property of the zone data not of any particular message. i

Re: [DNSOP] remarks on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-01

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 09:56:56AM +0100, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote: > > +1. Backwards compatibility means you cannot specify that existing > implementations have to change. You can specify that 'upgraded' > implementations perform new actions, of course. No RFC can make changes that apply to imp

Re: [DNSOP] remarks on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-01

> Andrew Sullivan > Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:56 AM > > No RFC can make changes that apply to implementations that do not > conform with that RFC. This is true by definition. The draft does > not somehow magically retroactively change the text in RFC 1035. It > s

Re: [DNSOP] remarks on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-01

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 03:58:47AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > > if you want new behaviour, negotiate for it. So you want a way to signal the new behaviour and negotiate that? It strikes me that the EDNS0 option that Paul Wouters wrote up was intended to offer such signalling, and people thought

Re: [DNSOP] remarks on draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-01

Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 03:58:47AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: >> > >> > if you want new behaviour, negotiate for it. > > So you want a way to signal the new behaviour and negotiate that? i don't care whether there's new behaviour. but if new behaviour is going to be incom

Re: [DNSOP] A short note on the DNSOP agenda....

Hi Stephane, On Mar 19, 2015, at 4:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > May be all discussions about RFC 6761 and its followups could be moved > to a special session (because of the huge potential for lengthy > discussions)? We already suggested this. We'll consider you as supportive, thank y

[DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7477 (4307)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7477, "Child-to-Parent Synchronization in DNS". -- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7477&eid=4307 -- Type: Editorial

Re: [DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7477 (4307)

RFC Errata System writes: > Notes > - > confusing typo, confirmed with author. Yep. And I was sure that was fixed at some point too. -- Wes Hardaker Parsons ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] A short note on the DNSOP agenda....

In message <20150319082207.ga11...@nic.fr>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 08:19:16PM +, > Tim Wicinski wrote > a message of 16 lines which said: > > > We've been hammering out the agenda, and we've got more requests than we > > have time. We're focusing on working