Peace,
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019, 7:17 AM Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jul 2019, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > The DNS 2019 not only had ON THE DAY changes (thanks to Google changing
> > their 8.8.8.8 service on the day)
>
> So even pumping up the hype didn't actually help inform the people that
> needed
In favor of adoption.
And while we're at it, doesn't it make sense to (kinda proactively)
include some potential transports in the draft (like DoQ) to avoid RFC
one-liners in future? Even only to note later that those didn't see
widespread adoption afterwards.
--
Töma
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 7:09
Errata:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019, 5:59 PM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> Even only to note later that those didn't see
> widespread adoption afterwards.
>
* "Even _if_ only ...", I'm not really that pessimistic.
--
Töma
>
Peace,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:44 PM Naveen Kottapalli
wrote:
> My query was about the behavior we observed on a gateway
> where a pure v4 subscriber (not dual-stack) has sent both A
> and query for the same domain simultaneously. Just
> wanted to know why would a pure v4 subscriber whic
Peace,
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:08 PM Warren Kumari wrote:
> [..skip..]
> Looking in the webserver log, there are also some hits - e.g:
> - - [21/May/2020:19:09:10 +] "GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.1" 404 209
> "http://www.wow4dns.com/"; "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X
> 10_15_4) AppleWeb
Peace,
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 8:39 PM Daniel Migault wrote:
> To my perspective, holding code point allocation is likely to result in
> non allocated code points being used which represents a higher threat to
> interoperability than adding an algorithm.
>
+1
>
__
Peace,
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 8:31 PM Eric Rescorla wrote:
> My reasoning is that (as above) these algorithms are generally of
> low interest and that requiring community review for code point
> registration has the result of consuming quite scarce resources
> in the service of making the algori
Peace,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, 5:17 AM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2020, at 6:07 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> > To not adopt this means, the implementers could easily pick their own
>
> This seems unlikely. If they step on unallocated code points, few
> implementers will go along with that becaus
purposefully degraded absorber,
mentioned in (5).
> 2: R1 [..]
> But the distribution of queries tend to be skewed towards authoritatives with
> lower
There's a reason for that that you may want to mention, namely, smoothed RTT.
| Töma Gavrichenkov
| gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 2:03 PM Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> I believe Cricket Liu refers to draft-woodworth-bulk-rr
Certainly not. See
https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/middle-aged-dns-tech-still-has-legs-to-kick-on
from the same author where the idea is explained kind of better:
"The challeng
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 9:46 AM Warren Kumari wrote:
> also, a good suggestion for a name would be helpful :-)
That is, aside from "scent" which is as obvious, as it is weird?
--
Töma
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/
On Wed, May 1, 2019, 12:10 AM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. Puneet, Roy and I have just published a -00 with an idea
> for how to get information about a recursive resolver from the resolver, if
> it wants to give that information.
>
The draft assumes that both the recursive resolver an
12 matches
Mail list logo
