Hi dnsop wg.
We have submitted an update to our rfc3901bis draft "DNS IPv6 Transport
Operational Guidelines."
The changes can be seen below.
Diff from v3 to v5(current):
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-momoka-dnsop-3901bis-03&url2=draft-momoka-dnsop-3901bis-05&difftype=--html
The
Hi
a few comments opjn this draft
1. RFC7766 ("All general-purpose DNS implementations MUST support both UDP and
TCP transport." should also be
noted at this point in the document, as avoiding fragmentation relies on a
working TCP fallback
2. (minor) change "Guidelines for Authoritative D
Greetings,
There seems to be a mismatch between the document's intended status of
Informational and the statement in the Abstract that it "documents Best
Current Practice". I note that RFC 3901 in fact was a BCP.
Mike Heard
___
DNSOP mailing list -- dns
Hi all,
On the other hand, couldn't it actually be beneficial if the signalling
zone name is generic enough, and if (in theory on the future) it is
shared with possibly completely different signals, possibly unrelated to
DNSSEC?
With this in mind, I support the signalling label _signal. Othe
It appears that libor.peltan said:
>Hi all,
>
>On the other hand, couldn't it actually be beneficial if the signalling
>zone name is generic enough, and if (in theory on the future) it is
>shared with possibly completely different signals, possibly unrelated to
>DNSSEC?
It doesn't seem very l
Quoting John Levine on Wednesday May 01, 2024:
>
> We all know the people at IANA who run .INT. If we can't persuade them
> that this has becomes a problem that needs to be fixed, how urgent is
> it likely to be?
No persuasion necessary. There has been an ongoing project to update
the signing app
