Re: [DNSOP] kskroll-sentinel responses

On 02/01/2018 23:37, Paul Hoffman wrote: > This answer doesn't seem to fully address Robert's and Ray's questions. > Why use an A/ query if you aren't going to do anything with the > result? If you are going to use A/, you have to tell resolvers what > to return in the results. Using a n

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: QNAME

On 18.12.2017 20:05, Paul Vixie wrote: > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >> As I mentioned in this errata >> , I think RFC 2308 was >> wrong in redefining QNAME. My personal preference would be to change >> the second paragraph to "RFC 2308 proposed another def

Re: [DNSOP] kskroll-sentinel responses

On 3 Jan 2018, at 1:11, Ray Bellis wrote: On 02/01/2018 23:37, Paul Hoffman wrote: This answer doesn't seem to fully address Robert's and Ray's questions. Why use an A/ query if you aren't going to do anything with the result? If you are going to use A/, you have to tell resolvers wh

Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: QNAME

On 11 Dec 2017, at 16:30, Paul Hoffman wrote: Greetings again. Some of the new terms added to the terminology-bis draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis/)since RFC 7719 can expose what some (but not all) people perceive as lack of clarity in RFC 1034/1035. T

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-04.txt

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 WG of the IETF. Title : C-DNS: A DNS Packet Capture Format Authors : John Dickinson Jim Hague

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-04.txt

Hi All, This is a very minor update (to avoid expiration), a more significant one is in the works. Sara. > On 3 Jan 2018, at 17:02, 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 Do

[DNSOP] 4035 3.1.4.1 erratum? dig ds root-servers.net @X.root-servers.net

Output edited for brevity: $ dig ds root-servers.net @d.root-servers.net ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 17643 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, fla

Re: [DNSOP] 4035 3.1.4.1 erratum? dig ds root-servers.net @X.root-servers.net

That's a good point. Personally, I'd favour a referral response since it saves resolver a round trip (at least for resolvers not doing QNAME minimisation), it seems in conflict with 3.1.4.1 though as you pointed here. Marek On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Peter van Dijk wrote: > Output edited f

Re: [DNSOP] 4035 3.1.4.1 erratum? dig ds root-servers.net @X.root-servers.net

Marek Vavruša wrote: That's a good point. Personally, I'd favour a referral response since it saves resolver a round trip (at least for resolvers not doing QNAME minimisation), it seems in conflict with 3.1.4.1 though as you pointed here. ... I think an erratum to 4035 is in order, clarifyi

Re: [DNSOP] 4035 3.1.4.1 erratum? dig ds root-servers.net @X.root-servers.net

On 01/03/2018 07:31 PM, Peter van Dijk wrote: > What does dnsop think? I also prefer referral in this case, as it seems to make more sense for resolvers.  (For public reference, as we've discussed more directly.)  And thank you for bringing this problem to attention. How to best formulate a gene

Re: [DNSOP] 4035 3.1.4.1 erratum? dig ds root-servers.net @X.root-servers.net

The reply also has to work for STD13 clients which already know about the child zone. The NODATA response is the correct one despite it requiring more work for a DNSSEC client. -- Mark Andrews > On 4 Jan 2018, at 05:31, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > Output edited for brevity: > > $ dig ds roo