Hi all,
Two questions came up recently when writing the DNS Privacy BCP with respect to
terminology (and on the dns-operations list):
1) What do folks think about adding a new definition to this document for a
shortened term for DNS-over-TLS? Since we now have DoH I’ve often taken to
referri
This is not a complete review of the latest revision.. I'm hoping to get to
that in a day or two. But I've got a question about whether something
should be added to the document..
A question came up in conversation recently about the use of the verb "to
publish" in reference to managing DNS data
On 3 Jul 2018, at 09:11, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> This is not a complete review of the latest revision.. I'm hoping to get to
> that in a day or two. But I've got a question about whether something
> should be added to the document..
>
> A question came up in conversation recently about the
Dear Tim Wicinski,
The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information followed by
the original request.
dnsop Session 1 (2:00 requested)
Wednesday, 18 July 2018, Morning Session I 0930-1200
Room Name: Laurier size: 250
On 02/07/2018 15:39, Paul Wouters wrote:
> If you are trusting an unsigned A record in the answer section, you might
> as well trust the unsigned record in the additional section too.
>
> I think minimum responses should still always just include this.
As others have pointed out, the proble
Ray Bellis wrote:
On 02/07/2018 15:39, Paul Wouters wrote:
If you are trusting an unsigned A record in the answer section, you might
as well trust the unsigned record in the additional section too.
I think minimum responses should still always just include this.
As others have pointe
On 03/07/2018 17:26, Paul Vixie wrote:
> please, please, please make a document that advises authority and
> recursive server implementors to do this as additional data. do not add
> a new code-point.
This is almost that document. You're credited in it, since we had a
long talk about it in Pragu
