Hello,
Paul Vixie and I submitted draft-fujiwara-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-03.txt
Please review it.
Changes from 01 to 03 are:
- Changed title as Fragmentation Avoidance in DNS
- Refer draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile
- Fixed: Minimum MTU forIPv4 is 68 (from 576)
- Added: DNS flag day 2020 propo
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers - Failure To Communicate'
(draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-20.txt) as Best Current Practice
This document is the product of the Domain Name System Operations Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons a
I read the draft and like it, this is a clear statement of the problem and
good way forward.
I agree with the idea that "all" NS are lame is a good signal to
revalidate,
One idea to throw out here triggered by the first two paragraphs in section
3
Should we recommend that Authoritative servers tha
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:36 PM Ólafur Guðmundsson
wrote:
>
> I read the draft and like it, this is a clear statement of the problem and
> good way forward.
>
Thanks Olafur!
> I agree with the idea that "all" NS are lame is a good signal to
> revalidate,
>
Yeah, me too. But as Paul later note
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 3:21 PM Puneet Sood wrote:
> +1 to the dnsop WG adopting this document.
>
> I have not read the document fully yet but will be commenting on it.
Thank you Puneet - we look forward to your comments!
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 12:51 PM Bob Harold wrote:
> Having read through the draft, and twice through the emails, I think the
> draft has the right balance in using the parent and child NS RRsets
> properly.
>
> I think the "extra" query for the child NS, sent once per parent TTL, is a
> savings
> On 12 Apr 2020, at 03:57, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article
> you
> write:
>> Sure. Brian was asking specifically asking about the TLD case, so my
>> answer was in that context. For that space, I think one of the issues is:
>> even if they were willing to verify all the delegations, it isn
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 : A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers - Failure
To Communicate
Authors : M. Andrews
> On 9 Apr 2020, at 00:16, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
>
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-20: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and C
> On 8 Apr 2020, at 11:25, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-20: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the T
Remember that in ICANN contracted TLDs and in some ccTLDs, a registry
can only contact registrants by going through the registrars.
So they sent the notices via the registrar. There is nothing preventing
that.
Actually there is -- there's no mechanism to do so. Registries and
registrars com
Mark
Thank you for your detailed answers. They make sense (and I learned quite a bit
in the same shot)
Regards
-éric
-Original Message-
From: Mark Andrews
Date: Tuesday, 14 April 2020 at 02:15
To: Eric Vyncke
Cc: The IESG , Tim Wicinski ,
"draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-is...@ietf.or
12 matches
Mail list logo
