Thanks for pointing out the mistake. I will revise it in next version.
The opening paragraph of 4.3 should be removed and how a recursive DNS responds
to a DDC request option should be added in 4.2.
As recent research has found new attack that by pointing the glue address to
public recursive
On 1/22/2024 6:44 PM, Amanda Baber via RT wrote:
I'm just writing to note that we put this fix in place last week, after a note
from Warren:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters
dandy. thanks!
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker@mastodon.social
Hi Dave, all,
I'm just writing to note that we put this fix in place last week, after a note
from Warren:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters
thanks,
Amanda Baber
IANA Operations Manager
On Mon Jan 15 22:02:40 2024, dcroc...@bbiw.net wrote:
> On 1/15/2024 1:32 PM, RFC Errata
On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 3:24 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> All
>
> Peter has integrated feedback from the first working group last call, and
> we'd like to do a followup last call. The diff with the current version
> is here:
>
>
>
Tim Wicinski has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis-02 as
Best Current Practice on behalf of the DNSOP working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis/
___
DNSOP
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis-02.txt is now available. It is a
work item of the Domain Name System Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF.
Title: Initializing a DNS Resolver with Priming Queries
Authors: Peter Koch
Matt Larson
Paul Hoffman
Name:
All
The Working Group Last Call has completed, and thank you all for your
comments. We consider the document to have consensus to move forward.
The authors (Paul) will upload the latest version with the changes
suggested, and we will move this forward.
thanks
tim
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 8:54
On 1/22/24 17:47, Paul Hoffman wrote:
I support the publication of this document. As I told the authors a long time ago, I'm
still uneasy with all the capitalization ("Client" and so on) because it
disagrees with our Terminology RFC, and still offer to do a massive pull request to fix
it,
I support the publication of this document. As I told the authors a long time
ago, I'm still uneasy with all the capitalization ("Client" and so on) because
it disagrees with our Terminology RFC, and still offer to do a massive pull
request to fix it, but if they want to keep it, that's up to
Yes, agree, we should publish.
4.3 *The Parental Agent receives a new or updated NS record set for a Child;*
4.3 *Any other condition as deemed appropriate by local policy.*
-> to confirm my understanding, as a registry operator, a trigger could be
when a domain is new/being registered, and
10 matches
Mail list logo
