On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 13:06:12 BST Richard Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Jim Hague wrote:
> > Timestamps, on the other hand, I always regarded as a basic data type,
> > so naturally a structure. Plus, of course, there's one per
> > query/response item, so in a block the size
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-07: No Objection
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
--On Thursday, July 6, 2017 00:36 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
wrote:
> There are changes to the DNS that are practical and those that
> are not. For better or worse, I can't see any way that
> teaching DNS to use new classes makes any sense at this point.
> The only point at which it would have
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:15:34AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Thursday, July 6, 2017 00:36 -0400 Phillip Hallam-Baker
> wrote:
> > The X.500 and UDDI models were broken because there is no
> > point in putting information into a directory if the service
> > can return it in a service hand
> DNS is not a directory, but when your only off-the-shelf choices are DNS
> or LDAP...
this is the ietf. do not ignore bgp and ldp.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Jim Hague wrote:
> > All the keys in those maps (and in every map, as far as I can tell) are
> > strings, for which "unsigned" is a meaningless concept.
>
> No. All keys are unsigned ints, with values specified in the CDDL. We
> should
> make this more explicit in
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Randy Bush wrote:
DNS is not a directory, but when your only off-the-shelf choices are DNS
or LDAP...
this is the ietf. do not ignore bgp and ldp.
+1
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinf
On 7/5/2017 8:11 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Michael StJohns writes:
That's not actually a plus you understand. Mike
Sure it is. We're down to the point where large changes aren't needed :-P
I'm sure you think that... but the small changes you've made to address
some of my comments haven't
Michael StJohns writes:
> I'm sure you think that... but the small changes you've made to
> address some of my comments haven't gone far enough. There's also a
> need for a grammar and syntax pass on the document.
Thanks for the review and suggested text (the previous messages you sent
didn't p
On 7/6/2017 1:40 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
Michael StJohns writes:
I'm sure you think that... but the small changes you've made to
address some of my comments haven't gone far enough. There's also a
need for a grammar and syntax pass on the document.
Thanks for the review and suggested text (t
--On Thursday, July 6, 2017 09:11 +1000 Mark Andrews
wrote:
>...
> And the actual presentation limit for LDH with DNS is 253
> (encodes as 255 octets on the wire). Remember URI names do
> not have a final period and the each label has length octet
> when encoded as a DNS name and the name is t
Michael StJohns writes:
> On 7/6/2017 1:40 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> Michael StJohns writes:
>>
>>> I'm sure you think that... but the small changes you've made to
>>> address some of my comments haven't gone far enough. There's also a
>>> need for a grammar and syntax pass on the document.
>>
John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Thursday, July 6, 2017 09:11 +1000 Mark Andrews
> wrote:
>
>>...
>> And the actual presentation limit for LDH with DNS is 253
>> (encodes as 255 octets on the wire). Remember URI names do
>> not have a final period and the each label has length octet
>> when encod
In message <20170706153955.GB3393@localhost>, Nico Williams writes:
> So new classes will only be useful to extend the IN-class RR type
> namespace. We won't get there. New RR types can be very difficult to
> deploy due to lack of interest by registrars and domain hosting
> services. TXT RRs fo
As for those that think deploying a new class would be hard the
tools that start to lookup records in the class would need to react
to error responses like this with a message saying "please install
root hints for class50 in your DNS recursive server".
[rock:~/git/bind9] marka% dig class50 type1
In message <901C29488D8446E4176CF83E@PSB>, John C Klensin writes:
>
>
> --On Thursday, July 6, 2017 09:11 +1000 Mark Andrews
> wrote:
>
> >...
> > And the actual presentation limit for LDH with DNS is 253
> > (encodes as 255 octets on the wire). Remember URI names do
> > not have a final peri
--On Friday, July 7, 2017 10:42 +1000 Mark Andrews
wrote:
>> The same subsection of RFC 3986 also uses the term "host
>> subcomponent" for what you are referring to as a name and
>> allows it to be a "registered name" (or ) that
>> might not be a DNS name or reference at all -- whether it is
>>
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:52:36AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <20170706153955.GB3393@localhost>, Nico Williams writes:
> > So new classes will only be useful to extend the IN-class RR type
> > namespace. We won't get there. New RR types can be very difficult to
> > deploy due to lack
In message <20170707055315.GC3393@localhost>, Nico Williams writes:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:52:36AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > In message <20170706153955.GB3393@localhost>, Nico Williams writes:
> > > So new classes will only be useful to extend the IN-class RR type
> > > namespace. We w
19 matches
Mail list logo
