Greetings again. Can one of you summarize the differences between sections 4/5
and 6/7 in the recent -01 draft? It seems that the error code processing in 4/5
might either be useful or overkill.
A related question for Don: how close are you to getting draft-eastlake-fnv
published? For me, it is
In message <683e2720-66f7-4b45-8787-99bd93fa2...@vpnc.org>, Paul Hoffman writes
:
> Greetings again. Can one of you summarize the differences between
> sections 4/5 and 6/7 in the recent -01 draft? It seems that the error
> code processing in 4/5 might either be useful or overkill.
I can't think
Hi,
I've made some progress on the FNV code. I expect to be able to
advance it, presumably as AD sponsored, before the next IETF.
On DNS Cookies errors, I agree that the utility of the error field, as
far as we can see right now, is quite limited. Still, there can be
error conditions in the Cooki
All,
As we announced in Dallas, we’ve decided to have a separate meeting on
Special Names and RFC 6761 topics. We're planning on scheduling this
the week of April 13th; with Thursday, April 16th as an initial choice.
If folks have any preference for a date, or conflicts with this one,
plea
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 06:38:24PM -0400, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> The big argument against a Cookie error field, that I can see, is that
> it isn't there in the BIND implementation and running code speaks
> loudly in the IETF.
When this is standardized, BIND will be changing the OPT code anyway;
In message <20150330030443.ga23...@isc.org>, Evan Hunt writes:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 06:38:24PM -0400, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> > The big argument against a Cookie error field, that I can see, is that
> > it isn't there in the BIND implementation and running code speaks
> > loudly in the IETF.
