Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-01.txt

[Jim Hague]

On Thursday, 23 February 2017 13:58:18 GMT Bob Harold wrote:
> Is it possible to have a case where the software does not know if
> promiscuous mode was enabled ?  If so, we should allow for an "unspecified"
> or "unknown" code for "promisc"
> 
> Perhaps a pcap to C-DNS converter would have this issue, if the pcap format
> does not include "promisc" info?

Thanks, that's a good point. Yes, it is certainly possible to not have a known 
promiscuous mode, and also of course in the case of a pcap conversion the 
interface is not known.

We're discussing the best approach to handling this; whether to have specified 
'unspecified' values, or specify that, since all config items in C-DNS are 
optional, values should only be present if definitely known.
-- 
Jim Hague
j...@sinodun.com  Never trust a computer you can't lift.
Sinodun Internet Technologies Ltd.   +44 7941 697732

___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] order of records in DNAME responses

[Edward Lewis]

On 2/25/17, 14:52, "Olafur Gudmundsson" wrote:

>...can not be any stronger than “SHOULD”...

And that is why it remains you "MUST" be liberal in what you accept. ;)



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop