All
We've requested our normal 2 hour slot. We are also experimenting with
an additional 1 hour slot that we could use if 1) it's after the initial
session; and 2) we have actual topics to discuss that we run out of time
for.
Please send any agenda requests if you would like some time, and
The chairs feel that the Author has addressed all the comments that have
been brought up on the mailing list and updated this draft to reflect
this. We are ready to move forward with a Working Group Last Call.
At this time, this starts a Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-dnsop-edn
A few minor notes on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-chain-query-02
My apologies for not seeing these earlier.
Or perhaps I am not understanding this correctly.
pg 6
sec 5.2
"Depending on the size of the labels of the last known entry point
value, a DNS Query packet could be arbitrarily large. If using
On 11.2.2015 17:08, Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:44:31PM +0100, Pier Carlo Chiodi wrote:
>>> Wild idea: Could it be solved by adding more information to SERVFAIL
>>> answer?
>>
>> a draft was proposed with this very topic, but it's expired now:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org
Hello,
I would like early feedback about following idea about interaction between DNS
updates (RFC 2136) and classless IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation (RFC 2317).
In short, the RFC 2317 tells me to fill reverse zone with CNAMEs pointing to
(potentially) some other zone.
At the same time, an attempt to a
