On 9/27/16, 18:46, "Matthew Pounsett" wrote:
>Would it be better then to leave early expiry as an implementation choice
I think it comes down to implementer's choice. The goal of the (IETF in
general) documents is interoperability. Whether or not a cache chooses to keep
the cached entries or r
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-maintain-ds-03: No Record
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to h
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Edward Lewis
wrote:
> On 9/27/16, 18:46, "Matthew Pounsett" wrote:
> >Would it be better then to leave early expiry as an implementation choice
>
> I think it comes down to implementer's choice. The goal of the (IETF in
> general) documents is interoperability.
> william manning Tue, 20 September 2016
> 04:29 UTC wrote:
> back in the early days of potentially confusing
> assignments/delegations, I was asked to stand up authoritative
> servers for the RFC 1918 space. The first iteration was just a
> wildcard to TXT.Clients (early microsoft clients
On 28 September 2016 at 06:42, Edward Lewis wrote:
> On 9/27/16, 18:46, "Matthew Pounsett" wrote:
> >Would it be better then to leave early expiry as an implementation choice
>
>
> Ultimately, the goal of the draft is to tell a recursive server that if it
> can conclusively deduce existence of a
Moin!
On 28 Sep 2016, at 17:21, Shumon Huque wrote:
> To be precise, I would say we are not necessarily always pruning out entire
> zones. For a leaf zone, we are pruning all names within that zone below the
> nxdomain-cut, modulo cached entries, i.e. a subset of the zone. But yes,
> for non-leaf
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ralf Weber wrote:
> Moin!
>
> On 28 Sep 2016, at 17:21, Shumon Huque wrote:
> > To be precise, I would say we are not necessarily always pruning out
> entire
> > zones. For a leaf zone, we are pruning all names within that zone below
> the
> > nxdomain-cut, modul
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Pounsett
wrote:
>
>
> On 28 September 2016 at 06:42, Edward Lewis
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/27/16, 18:46, "Matthew Pounsett" wrote:
>> >Would it be better then to leave early expiry as an implementation choice
>>
>>
>> Ultimately, the goal of the draft is to t
This is slightly off topic from dnsop, though is definitely heavily
related so please excuse my side topic posting:
USC/ISI will be holding a workshop, of which the announcement follows.
This, sadly, conflicts with the upcoming IETF. Because it conflicts
with the Seoul IETF, which I'll also be
On 28 September 2016 at 10:29, Shumon Huque wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Pounsett
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 28 September 2016 at 06:42, Edward Lewis
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/27/16, 18:46, "Matthew Pounsett" wrote:
>>> >Would it be better then to leave early expiry as an impleme
Me
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
take a gander at this...
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>
> This is slightly off topic from dnsop, though is definitely heavily
> related so please excuse my side topic posting:
>
>
> USC/ISI will be holding a workshop, of which the announcement follows.
> This, sadly, c
I don't think this has anything to do with RFC 6761, so ...
For a very long time, two letter TLDs have been assigned to countries
and other geographic entities per the ISO 3166 alpha-2 list. The
earliest mention I can find is in RFC 920 in 1984, and even then the
wording suggests that the usage w
In message <20160928232720.9513.qm...@ary.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
> I don't think this has anything to do with RFC 6761, so ...
>
> For a very long time, two letter TLDs have been assigned to countries
> and other geographic entities per the ISO 3166 alpha-2 list. The
> earliest mention I ca
John,
On September 28, 2016 at 4:27:51 PM, John Levine (jo...@taugh.com) wrote:
I don't think this has anything to do with RFC 6761, so ...
I tend to agree, but it did get caught up in the 6761 maelstrom
For a very long time, two letter TLDs have been assigned to countries
and other geographic
I've been telling people that if they need a fake private TLD for their local
?? network they should use one of those since it is exceedingly unlikely
?? ever to collide with a real DNS name. Am I right?
??
I'd really like to say yes, but ISO-3166/MA appears to have removed references to
"User
>No. Just because countries don't get assigned these values it
>doesn't mean that they can't be assigned by ICANN or the IETF in
>consultation with ICANN.
I don't see how that follows. For over 30 years, the rule has been
that two-letter names are reserved for ccTLDs. There's never been any
hin
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:04:54AM -0400,
Matt Larson wrote
a message of 41 lines which said:
> I'd venture that more people familiar with the subject matter would
> define QNAME as the name in the question section of a DNS message.
> (That's my sense of the definition, FWIW.)
What about addi
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:35:00PM -0400,
Paul Wouters wrote
a message of 16 lines which said:
> > it works (two TLD were registered through it).
>
> Are you referring to the two registrations as successes or failures,
In the absence of criteria for defining success or failure of a
special-u
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 12:23:15PM -0400,
Ted Lemon wrote
a message of 72 lines which said:
> Stephane, have you read draft-tldr-sutld-ps?
Yes, but did not had time to post a sensible review, sorry.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:33:39PM +0100,
Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote
a message of 148 lines which said:
> The RCODE applies to the RRSET pointed to by the last CNAME in answer
> section (or the missing one).
This specific case was settled in RFC 6604 and I did not intend to
reopen it. My proble
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 05:51:54PM +0100,
Jim Reid wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
> > No. It is rightmost only in LTR scripts. "final" is correct,
> > "rightmost" isn't. Please delete it.
>
> The original text is correct and doesn’t need fixing. Well, at least
> the quoted extract do
In message <20160929025351.9873.qm...@ary.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
> >No. Just because countries don't get assigned these values it
> >doesn't mean that they can't be assigned by ICANN or the IETF in
> >consultation with ICANN.
>
> I don't see how that follows. For over 30 years, the rule ha
On 9/29/16, 03:27, "DNSOP on behalf of John Levine" wrote:
> Last year Ed Lewis wrote an I-D proposing that XA-XZ be made private use and
> the rest future use, but as far as I can tell it never went anywhere.
I'd been waiting for anyone else to show an interest in it before spending any
time
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 09:04:54AM -0400,
> Matt Larson wrote
> a message of 41 lines which said:
>
> > I'd venture that more people familiar with the subject matter would
> > define QNAME as the name in the question section of a DNS message.
> > (That's my sense o
25 matches
Mail list logo
