Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-09.txt

Op 07-02-2023 om 16:45 schreef Paul Wouters:> I find the valid use of the name "invalid" to be pretty horrible. An engineer looking at a catalog might quickly believe the invalid is a bug where it should have shown a real domain. Why not _catalog.arpa or something ? We, the co-authors, actuall

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-09.txt

Op 08-02-2023 om 14:27 schreef Paul Wouters: While re-reading the properties / version bits, I noticed this text in section 4.3.2.1 :       In this scenario, consumer(s) shall, by agreement, not sign the member zone "example.com ." with DNSSEC. Since the

[DNSOP] FW: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03

This may be of interest to dnsop folks, too. At least two of the terms included in this dictionary ("Domain Name" and "NS") are commonly used in DNS specifications. Scott > -Original Message- > From: regext On Behalf Of James Galvin > Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 9:40 AM > To: REGEXT

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-09.txt

Op 09-02-2023 om 12:38 schreef Willem Toorop: Op 08-02-2023 om 14:27 schreef Paul Wouters: While re-reading the properties / version bits, I noticed this text in section 4.3.2.1 :        In this scenario, consumer(s) shall, by agreement, not sign the member zone "example.com <

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-09.txt

On Feb 9, 2023, at 06:33, Willem Toorop wrote: > > Op 07-02-2023 om 16:45 schreef Paul Wouters:> I find the valid use of the > name "invalid" to be pretty horrible. An >> engineer looking at a catalog might quickly believe >> the invalid is a bug where it should have shown a real domain. Why no

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-09.txt

Op 09-02-2023 om 14:46 schreef Paul Wouters: On Feb 9, 2023, at 06:33, Willem Toorop wrote: Op 07-02-2023 om 16:45 schreef Paul Wouters:> I find the valid use of the name "invalid" to be pretty horrible. An engineer looking at a catalog might quickly believe the invalid is a bug where it sho

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-09.txt

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023, Willem Toorop wrote: Or it could use “_catalog.example.com” ? Yes, if we add a sentence that the fictional organization producing this catalog is "example.com", then we could use that too yes. That would imho be the best solution. Paul ___

[DNSOP] QDCOUNT > 1 (a modest proposal)

(I've Bcc'd dnssd, but if you want to join this discussion it's probably best to do it in one wg, and I think it's most relevant to dnssd, so I put dnssd in the To: field) We've been talking elsewhere (Thread) about a small issue that comes up in constrained networks that if we want to do service

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-09.txt

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 9:56 AM Paul Wouters wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2023, Willem Toorop wrote: > > >> Or it could use “_catalog.example.com” ? > > > > Yes, if we add a sentence that the fictional organization producing this > > catalog is "example.com", then we could use that too yes. > > That w

Re: [DNSOP] FW: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03

Big fan of this document and feel it is good. I have only one small nit: See also "domain name" in [RFC8499]. Should this not be "Domain name" (per 8499) ? I have a deeper question on using "ext" for extension - it feels like an abbreviation which doesn't feel useful. But I'm no expert on mat

Re: [DNSOP] FW: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03

On Thu, 9 Feb 2023, Tim Wicinski wrote: Big fan of this document and feel it is good. I have only one small nit: See also "domain name" in [RFC8499]. Should this not be "Domain name"  (per 8499) ? I have a deeper question on using "ext" for extension - it feels like an  abbreviation wh

Re: [DNSOP] FW: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03

On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 12:19 PM Paul Wouters wrote: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2023, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > > Big fan of this document and feel it is good. I have only one small nit: > > > > See also "domain name" in [RFC8499]. > > > > > > Should this not be "Domain name" (per 8499) ? > > > > I have

Re: [DNSOP] FW: [regext] WGLC: draft-ietf-regext-datadictionary-03

On Feb 9, 2023, at 16:27, Tim Wicinski wrote:On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 12:19 PM Paul Wouters wrote:On Thu, 9 Feb 2023, Tim Wicinski wrote: >> I have a deeper question on using "ext" for extension - it feels like an  > abbreviation which doesn't feel useful.  But I'm no expert on ma