Hello,
On 23 Sep 2016, at 10:22, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:13:50PM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
a message of 68 lines which said:
This issue was spotted by Peter van Dijk. It is about
draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05, recently approved by IESG. The
problem i
Stephane,
On 25-09-16 10:14, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> [If you don't enjoy byzantine discussions, with a lot of
> chapter-and-verse mentions of RFCs, please skip the thread.]
>
> I've been directed recently to RFC 4035 and there is a question I would
> like to ask about its handling of ENTs.
>
On 26/09/2016 08:49, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>> My gut feeling is that RFC 4035 is wrong. But I prefer to ask first:
>> how do you read it?
>
> I think you are right that 4035 is wrong. I think it meant to say
> something like:
>
> Name Error: The node does not exist in the zone either
> ex
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 23 Sep 2016, at 10:22, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:13:50PM +0200,
>> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
>> a message of 68 lines which said:
>>
>> This issue was spotted by Peter van Dijk. It is about
>
> On Sep 23, 2016, at 4:22 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:13:50PM +0200,
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
> a message of 68 lines which said:
>
>> This issue was spotted by Peter van Dijk. It is about
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-05, recently approved by IESG. Th
On 26 Sep 2016, at 0:33, Peter van Dijk wrote:
2308 does not “redefine” QNAME. It clarifies that the usage in
1034 4.3.2 is the definition we use in RFCs. 1035 4.1(.2) does not
conflict with this; the QNAME there is just the initial QNAME.
This seems like a very limited view of RFC 1034. RFC
Hello,
Will there be an update to this draft before the telechat or is there
a running version with updates from the open discuss points that
should be referenced?
Thank you,
Kathleen
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Kathleen Moriarty
wrote:
> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2016, at 0:33, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > 2308 does not “redefine” QNAME. It clarifies that the usage in 1034
> > 4.3.2 is the definition we use in RFCs. 1035 4.1(.2) does not conflict
> > with this; the QNAME there is just the initial QNAME.
>
> This seems like a
#2. Rule
#
# When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives a response NXDOMAIN,
# it SHOULD store it in its cache and all names and RRsets at or below
# that node SHOULD then be considered to be unreachable. Subsequent
# queries for such names SHOULD elicit an NXDOMAIN response.
#
# B
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:57:05AM -0700,
> internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote
> a message of 48 lines which said:
>
>> Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
>> Authors : Warren Kumari
>>
My first impression of this document is that it is still in need of some
extreme editing – mostly for grammar and syntax, but also for clarity and
readability. I've included many of the early problems I found in a list of
nits at the end of this email, but at two and three errors per paragraph
(an
In message <29b4a430-80c7-44c8-a6fa-54a1560d3...@icann.org>, Edward Lewis writ
es:
> #2. Rule
> #
> # When an iterative caching DNS resolver receives a response NXDOMAIN,
> # it SHOULD store it in its cache and all names and RRsets at or below
> # that node SHOULD then be considered to be u
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:48 PM, hellekin wrote:
> On 09/12/2016 11:57 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>>
>> 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
13 matches
Mail list logo
