On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:39:04PM +0200,
Peter van Dijk wrote
a message of 26 lines which said:
> > start of a very slippery slope to make queries or responses to
> > QTYPEs dependent on the underlying transport protocol (modulo AXFR
> > of course). Are layering violations acceptable nowadays
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Subject: [DNSOP] Asking for TCP and/or cookies: a trend? (Was: my lone hum
against draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 02:39:04PM +0200,
Peter van Dijk wrote
a message of 26 lines which said:
start of a very slipp
Hi Paul
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:10:10AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> And I have been wondering if we should allow for a DNS padding in the
> query packet to ensure answer packets (over UDP) are going to be
> smaller then the query packet. And therefore prevents DDOS
> amplification.
This has b
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.
Title : DNS Session Signaling
Authors : Ray Bellis
Stuart Cheshire
> If this WG adopts the document and then says "but we want to use an older
> version of the HTTP protocol", we should expect a fair amount of push-back
> during IETF Last Call.
RFC7540 clearly states:
This specification is an alternative to, but does not obsolete, the
HTTP/1.1 message synt
