Hi all,
During the IESG review, Adam Roach noticed that
draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis talked about “class" but never defined it.
This seemed to the authors and chairs like a reasonable thing to fix. It’s also
important enough that we want WG review, but not extensive enough to require a
new
Suzanne Woolf wrote:
Hi all,
During the IESG review, Adam Roach noticed that
draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis talked about “class" but never defined
it. This seemed to the authors and chairs like a reasonable thing to
fix. It’s also important enough that we want WG review, but not
extensive e
RFC 1035 Section 5.2 limits a zone to be single class.
> On 4 Sep 2018, at 1:34 am, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
>
> Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> During the IESG review, Adam Roach noticed that
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis talked about “class" but never defined
>> it. This seemed to
6. Cryptographic Hash Requirements
The cryptographic hash algorithm used SHOULD provide the following
properties:
1. Well known algorithm with implementations easily available.
2. Trusted algorithm with resistance to collision attacks.
3. Minimize output length for efficient
Actually, 5.2 suggests that a master file (not zone) should contain a
single class and single SOA record. That’s not the same thing as limiting
a zone to a single class AFAICT.
Mike
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 18:49 Mark Andrews wrote:
> RFC 1035 Section 5.2 limits a zone to be single class.
>
>
Actually it is. A master file is a zone transfer mechanism.
Mark
> On 4 Sep 2018, at 2:29 pm, StJohns, Michael wrote:
>
> Actually, 5.2 suggests that a master file (not zone) should contain a single
> class and single SOA record. That’s not the same thing as limiting a zone to
> a single c
Other parts of the doc say that some rr types are class specific and others are
universal. There an implication that class affects rdata format within a
universal rr type. It's incoherent as hell. The reason we don't use it is it's
poor definition. Incompatible implmentations could all be right
