On 31/01/2025 08:42, Libor Peltan wrote:
If I understand the background correctly, it might also help to declare
that the DNS software vendors SHOULD NOT develop tools that
automatically convert DUJ into DDNS and send it to a nameserver.
Why on earth not?!
DNS software vendors are going to b
On 31/01/2025 09:58, Ray Bellis wrote:
A nit: I'd prefer {"DUJ": [...]} over ["DUJ", [...]]
Although I see that PH has given a reasonable rationale for the use of
an array over an object, so, "meh".
Ray
___
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To
Hi Paul,
I can't really, as a DNS software vendor, say how much the draft is
useful in general, but it looks interesting.
If I understand the background correctly, it might also help to declare
that the DNS software vendors SHOULD NOT develop tools that
automatically convert DUJ into DDNS an
Hello Andreas,
> I support adoption.
Thanks!
> > 4.1:
> > Avoiding Fragmentation:
>
> you mean "Avoiding IP fragmentation"?
>
> clearance is important, as the draft is also about "Namespace
> Fragmentation"
Good point. Fixed in the editor's copy (and also added 9715 instead of
the draft there)
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 2:41 PM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. The following is a proposal to help end-users who are
> told "please enter this record in your zone to prove your existence". It
> simplifies the process without automating it; in short, it makes
> copy-and-pasting more likely
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 8:07 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 2:41 PM Paul Hoffman
> wrote:
>
>> Greetings again. The following is a proposal to help end-users who are
>> told "please enter this record in your zone to prove your existence". It
>> simplifies the process without aut
It appears that Paul Hoffman said:
>Greetings again. The following is a proposal to help end-users who are told
>"please enter this record in your zone to prove your existence". It
>simplifies the process without automating it; in short, it makes
>copy-and-pasting more likely to work, particula
Thanks for considering my various suggestions.
> On Jan 30, 2025, at 7:39 PM, Shumon Huque wrote:
>
>
> >Additional validation queries for the "glue" address RRs of referral
> >responses (if not already authoritatively present in cache) SHOULD be
>
> I found this a little confusing at
Thanks for the review Duane!
I have added some minor comments inline below with the individual
conversation items "cut out".
Op 31-01-2025 om 04:39 schreef Shumon Huque:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 8:36 PM Wessels, Duane
wrote:
> Additional addresses in authoritative NS RRset responses
