On Dec 24, 2024, at 14:01, John Levine wrote:
>
>
> See RFC 1996, section 4.8.
>
Ahh - but I’d have tagged 4.7. The query ID, whose relationship to NOTIFY is a
bit different from regular queries.
> Remember that the notification is just a hint. Whatever receives the NOTIFY
> might decide
>
It appears that Edward Lewis said:
>My first concern is that if the entries under _deleg.$parent will “leak” the
>registrar (when applicable) of a name for names
>that are run by operators that are not also registrars for the name. I don’t
>know if this is a business concern.
It's a business
On Dec 12, 2024, at 06:53, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Current versions of the draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify/
I have voiced reservations about this approach in the past, keep that in mind
when reviewing what I have here.
Between sec
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024, Edward Lewis wrote:
Remember that the notification is just a hint. Whatever receives the NOTIFY
might decide
to try the update on its own, so I don't see any new issues here. You're right
that if a
CDS key roll doesn't happen, there is no way to tell the child what the prob
