Hi Duane,
(Olli's message just bumped this thread up in my inbox, so it's an enormously
late reply but not for me, if you see what I mean)
On 25 Mar 2019, at 17:15, Wessels, Duane
wrote:
> I'm not aware of anything that could be enabled by non-apex ZONEMD records.
> My preference would be to
> On May 20, 2019, at 4:34 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> Hi Duane,
>
> (Olli's message just bumped this thread up in my inbox, so it's an enormously
> late reply but not for me, if you see what I mean)
>
> On 25 Mar 2019, at 17:15, Wessels, Duane
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not aware of anything that co
> On May 17, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Olli Vanhoja wrote:
>
> I believe this has been in a bit stall for some time. I'm finally
> trying push for some real production implementations.
>
> I have one note that I wrote when I was initially reading the draft:
>
> - Canonical RR Form comes from RFC 4034
> On Mar 25, 2019, at 6:53 AM, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 22:56, Wessels, Duane
> wrote:
> The only change to this document since -05 is to note that ZONEMD has been
> allocated RR type code 63 by IANA following an expert review back in December.
>
> I haven't
I think the worry is that some name servers may normalise the text format when
loading from disk. The slave would then have a different wire format.
Such servers are broken. Wire to text to wire should produce the same rdata bit
pattern with the exception of the types which are known to be comp
On May 20, 2019, at 18:24, Wessels, Duane wrote:
> Here's what the current (not-yet-published) draft now says:
>
> 2.1. ZONEMD Location
>
> This specification utilizes ZONEMD RRs located at the zone apex.
> Non-apex ZONEMD RRs are not forbidden, but have no meaning in this
> specification.
