On 8/10/16, 20:55, "Paul Hoffman" wrote:
>That seems like a categorization, not a definition. Or are there
>definitions that involve "local policy" you or Ed can propose?
I've given this some thought and am a bit conflicted.
On the one hand, the intent of DNSSEC way-back-when was that
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> We have updated this document with comments and feedback from Berlin.
> We have also gone through and done another editing pass, removing a
> significant amount of text which was intended to drive the discussion,
> but would not really be use
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>
>> We have updated this document with comments and feedback from Berlin.
>> We have also gone through and done another editing pass, removing a
>> significant amount of text which was
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2016, at 2:45, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
>> First, we have:
>>
>> "If a priming query does not get a response within 2 seconds, the
>> recursive resolver SHOULD retry with a different target address from
>> the configuration."
>>
>> T
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2016, at 2:45, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
>> First, we have:
>>
>> "If a priming query does not get a response within 2 seconds, the
>> recursive resolver SHOULD retry with a different target address from
>> the configuration."
>>
>> T
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
At Sat, 13 Aug 2016 14:01:52 +0300,
Andreas Gustafsson wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with existing resolvers that use the same
> timeout and retransmission strategies for priming queries as for any
> other query, and it seems wrong to me that a specific retransmission
> timeout should be requir
