> On Sep 7, 2021, at 9:42 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>
> Thanks for the updates! One quick comment below.
>
>> On 7. Sep 2021, at 18:23, Wessels, Duane wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 25, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And a more general comment on section 4.2:
On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 21:24:37 -0400
Warren Kumari wrote:
> As Robert Sparks helpfully pointed out on last-call list, I was only
> talking about this "particular potential BCP updating a particular
> Informational RFC both in the IETF stream.".
Hi Warren et al.,
I have this in the appendix:
T
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 3:47 PM John Kristoff wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 21:24:37 -0400
> Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> > As Robert Sparks helpfully pointed out on last-call list, I was only
> > talking about this "particular potential BCP updating a particular
> > Informational RFC both in the IET
Hi, DNSOP folks,
I have been working on the "unsigned NS record" problem (and related
"unsigned glue record" problem).
I think this is relatively widely applicable, even though it was originally
motivated by a problem that needed to be solved within DPRIVE.
(That problem is the subject of a draft
Hi, DNSOP folks,
I have been working on the "unsigned glue record" problem (and related
"unsigned NS record" problem).
This draft is mostly informational, and does not actually require any
protocol changes.
It might even be worth making a BCP, but I'll leave that up to the WG to
decide.
I think
>>On Sep 18,2021,at 3:47 PM, Wessels Duane wrote:
>>4.5. Defaults and Recommended Limits
>>
>> Most open sorcue DNS server implementations provide a configurable
>> limit on the total number of established connections. Default values
>> range from 20 to 150. In most cases, where the maj
