On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 18:26 +0200, libor.peltan wrote:
>
> May I be wrong, but I think that name, type, class and TTL are not repeated
> in one RRSet with multiple RData. Not in wire format and not necessarily even
> in zonefile. (?)
Zone files allow you to leave some of those out on subsequent
Hi,
The WGLC resulted in some good discussion of (mostly) small improvements to the
text, which the authors are responding to.
The chairs will be discussing advancement of this document in our next meeting.
Thanks to everyone who commented.
Suzanne
for the chairs
> On Apr 18, 2021, at 7:17
I have no strong opinions on any of the discussions regarding escaping in
presentation mode because I don't have much involvement in dealing with
presentation mode of DNS records. The client I work with parses wire
format directly into its internal structures.
>From my wire-format-only perspectiv
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:28 PM Eric Orth wrote:
> I have no strong opinions on any of the discussions regarding escaping in
> presentation mode because I don't have much involvement in dealing with
> presentation mode of DNS records. The client I work with parses wire
> format directly into it
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:28 PM Eric Orth wrote:
>
> I also oppose allowing multiple aliases within an RRSet. This would allow
> aliasing trees, unreasonably exploding the complexity/performance scope of
> query followup logic in stubs and recursives. In practice, I don't think
> this would ac
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 4:28 PM Brian Dickson
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:28 PM Eric Orth 40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> I have no strong opinions on any of the discussions regarding escaping in
>> presentation mode because I don't have much involvement in dealing with
>> p
On 12 May 2021, at 17:03, Eric Orth
wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 4:28 PM Brian Dickson
> wrote:
>
>> Responses including partial RRsets are as unlikely (and as illegal) as a
>> response to a query for SVCB being a TXT record saying "I'm a teapot".
>
> Agreed that there is no such issue
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 4:44 PM Brian Dickson
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:28 PM Eric Orth 40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I also oppose allowing multiple aliases within an RRSet. This would
>> allow aliasing trees, unreasonably exploding the complexity/performance
>> sco
It appears that Joe Abley said:
>> Agreed that there is no such issue with either wire format if all parties in
>> the ecosystem are bug-free and RFC-compliant.
>
>Do you know of an example of a DNS authoritative or recursive server that does
>return truncated RRSets in the ANSWER section?
A l
On 12 May 2021, at 17:39, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Joe Abley said:
>
>> Do you know of an example of a DNS authoritative or recursive server that
>> does return truncated RRSets in the ANSWER section?
>
> A lot return truncated glue in the ADDITIONAL section. Are we sure that
>
> On 13 May 2021, at 07:46, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 12 May 2021, at 17:39, John Levine wrote:
>
>> It appears that Joe Abley said:
>>
>>> Do you know of an example of a DNS authoritative or recursive server that
>>> does return truncated RRSets in the ANSWER section?
>>
>> A lot return
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 3:32 PM Eric Orth wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM John Levine wrote:
>
>> It appears that Joe Abley said:
>> >> Agreed that there is no such issue with either wire format if all
>> parties in the ecosystem are bug-free and RFC-compliant.
>> >
>> >Do you kno
(The history of SMTP is, I think, a good poster child for this, with MX,
A, , plus DNSSEC and TLSA support in the clients, which are email
transport things, not merely DNS things.)
Not really. MX and A mean different things, and it is useful and common
for an SMTP server to be pointed to v
13 matches
Mail list logo
