On 03/06/2015 17:22, Joe Abley wrote:
> I think there's a baked-in expectation that OPT pseudo-RR is included in
> every DNS message, not on every connection (where the transport is
> connection-oriented).
Joe,
Part of the reason this came up is this text in
draft-ietf-edns-tcp-keepalive:
"DN
Morning y’all.RFC 2181 is a “grab bag” of eight independent items that, 17
years ago, were not considered “large” enough
to warrant dedicated RFCs. Quoting from the abstract of the RFC:
"Eight separate issues are considered:
+ IP packet header address usage from multi-homed servers,
> On Jun 8, 2015, at 3:11 PM, manning wrote:
>
> What do you think? Is there a reason to not do this?
DNS implementation details are much cleaner than others (e.g.: BGP) in finding
the root documents and all the additive parts.
In other words, I support pushing these out.
- Jared
_
Since draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-client-subnet-01 theoretically reverted
the changes made in -00 from draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet
then why is the last sentence here with a SHOULD. MUST be omitted
would be correct to match draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet and
the IANA assignment of the opt
> From: Paul Hoffman
>> If resolvers are encouraged to use NSEC records to synthesize NXDOMAIN
>> responses, would there still be any point to this draft?
>
> Yes. No one has written up a document on using NSEC records to synthesize
> NXDOMAIN for the root, and if they do, there will certainly b
