Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

Hi Matthew, Thanks for your detailed reply, :-) Matthew Pounsett 于2017年8月13日周日 上午12:31写道： > On 12 August 2017 at 04:29, Lanlan Pan wrote: > >> Hi Matthew ＆ Paul, >> >> Good question, :-) >> >> SWILD is a feature just for recusive cache optimization, only dealing >> with the wildcard subdomain i

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

I've uploaded an -05 draft (diff to -04 ) that addresses some of the feedback in this thread, Ted Lemon's in particular. It attempts to spell out

Re: [DNSOP] Status of "let localhost be localhost"?

El 14 ag 2017, a les 7:30, Mike West va escriure: > I've uploaded an -05 draft (diff to -04) that addresses some of the feedback > in this thread, Ted Lemon's in particular. It attempts to spell out the > rationale for the NXDOMAIN change more clearly, boiling it down to Ted's > suggestion that

[DNSOP] dnsop - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 100

A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Tim Wicinski, a Chair of the dnsop working group. - Working Group Name: Domain Name System Operations Area Name: Operations and Management Area Session Requester: Tim Wicinski Numb

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

WG Chairs: i oppose adoption of this draft. Lanlan Pan wrote: Hi Paul, ... tl;dr: this message marks the end of this thread from my side. I think, SWILD has no influence on DNSSEC deployment : 1) If recursive wants to deploy DNSSEC, it is almost impossible because of NSEC/NSEC3 aggressiveus

[DNSOP] on engineering cost/benefits

I realize that for the Perl language, "there is always more than one way to do it". That was a design choice, and the results are now part of Perl's reputation as a "swiss-army chainsaw" perfectly suitable for the creation of unmaintainable programs. Generally, we do not provide more than one

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

Hi Paul, Don't judy other's motivation with meaningless skeptics. The endless skeptics can also push on your RPZ to DNSSEC. As an network engineer, I think good faith is face to the realistic internet world, try my best to offer a better solution to technology problem. If we anticipated the subd

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

In message , Lanlan Pan writes: > > Hi Paul, > > Don't judy other's motivation with meaningless skeptics. The endless > skeptics can also push on your RPZ to DNSSEC. I can't see how you can say push your RPZ to DNSSEC as RPZ breaks DNSSEC. > As an network engineer, I think good faith is face

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

Mark Andrews 于2017年8月15日周二 下午1:14写道： > > In message < > canljsvwyo0nbisjgsqhrh33evbcuflnzcjceahj-l89fa+e...@mail.gmail.com> > , Lanlan Pan writes: > > > > Hi Paul, > > > > Don't judy other's motivation with meaningless skeptics. The endless > > skeptics can also push on your RPZ to DNSSEC. > > I c

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-pan-dnsop-swild-rr-type-00.txt

> From: Lanlan Pan > Don't judy other's motivation with meaningless skeptics. The endless > skeptics can also push on your RPZ to DNSSEC. A significant difference between RPZ and the SWILD is that RPZ does not depend on non-participants doing anything. For example, RPZ works fine on a single, i