On 12/18/15 10:07 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 08:36:00PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>
>> this is the new era of "anything goes" for DNS protocol development. as with
>> client subnet, no
>> matter how bad an idea is, if someone is already doing it, then the ietf
>> docume
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 08:13:42AM -0800, joel jaeggli wrote:
> I think we dramatically better off, if we are willing to critically
> consider the implications of proposals someplace and expose the record
> of that, and I don't have a better location on offer then here.
I completely agree. But if
On Sunday, December 20, 2015 08:13:42 AM joel jaeggli wrote:
>
> I think we dramatically better off, if we are willing to critically
> consider the implications of proposals someplace and expose the record
> of that, and I don't have a better location on offer then here.
i was not trying to stifl
On Friday, December 18, 2015 05:56:19 PM Mark Delany wrote:
> > > That the request pipeline order doesn't necesarily match the response
> > > pipeline order is particularly unexpected in some protocols (and
> > > likely non-compliant), such as HTTP < 2.0
> >
> On 17Dec15, Paul Vixie allegedly wrot
On 20Dec15, Paul Vixie allegedly wrote:
> since DNS-over-HTTP does not call for out-of-order HTTP responses
But at least according to dpriv:
"Since pipelined responses can arrive out-of-order, clients MUST
match responses to outstanding queries using the ID field, query
name, type, a
On Sunday, December 20, 2015 08:49:33 PM Mark Delany wrote:
> On 20Dec15, Paul Vixie allegedly wrote:
> > since DNS-over-HTTP does not call for out-of-order HTTP responses
>
> But at least according to dpriv:
>
> "Since pipelined responses can arrive out-of-order, clients MUST
> match res
> > And since shane-review states:
> >
> > "This memo reviews the possible approaches..."
> >
> > I take it to mean that shane-review could encompass implementations
> > like dpriv that imply or propose out-of-order. If that is the case ...
>
> no.
Then I'd like to suggest a "yes" for this
On Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:03:58 PM Mark Delany wrote:
> > > And since shane-review states:
> > > "This memo reviews the possible approaches..."
> > >
> > > I take it to mean that shane-review could encompass implementations
> > > like dpriv that imply or propose out-of-order. If that is
On 12/20/15 1:31 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
On Sunday, December 20, 2015 08:13:42 AM joel jaeggli wrote:
I think we dramatically better off, if we are willing to critically
consider the implications of proposals someplace and expose the record
of that, and I don't have a better location
The call for adoption is over, and from the discussion before the
official call, and comments, it feels this is a document DNSOP should
adopt and work on, and possibly publish.
If the authors can upload the appropriate new version that would be great.
tim
On 12/5/15 5:07 PM, Tim Wicinski wrot
10 matches
Mail list logo
