On May 26, 2021, at 15:50, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>> The SVCB glue is just a slight optimization. I don't think it can even save
>> latency, just a packet per NS (and only in cases where the SVCB exists).
>>
> As noted in my presentation, it's more than an optimization. It's an
>
Hiya,
On 26/05/2021 20:49, Eric Rescorla wrote:
As noted in my presentation, it's more than an optimization. It's an
important security function in cases where the sensitive domain name is the
apex.
I agree with Eric on the above. And a similar thing is true
of the DS record for DNSSEC. And
Just to clarify given some of the feedback provided... This is not a
formal call for adoption. Rather, the chairs are soliciting feedback to
better inform the draft development process.
Regards,
Brian
On 5/25/21 5:16 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> All
>
> The authors took the advice from the working
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 11:21 AM Vladimír Čunát
wrote:
> I like it in principle, so I say adopt.
>
> I already see a significant problem, though I expect we can fix it somehow
> after adoption:
>
> After sending out all requests for SVCB records [...]
>
> My understanding of section 3 implies
I like it in principle, so I say adopt.
I already see a significant problem, though I expect we can fix it
somehow after adoption:
After sending out all requests for SVCB records [...]
My understanding of section 3 implies that an implementing resolver MUST
NOT ask any of the nameservers
Hiya,
On 25/05/2021 22:16, Tim Wicinski wrote:
All
The authors took the advice from the working group and extracted the more
common features
into a separate document. The chairs would like the working group to give
some comments, as
we feel a document like this should be considered for
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 2:28 PM Paul Wouters wrote:
> On May 25, 2021, at 17:16, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> >
> >
> > All
> >
> > The authors took the advice from the working group and extracted the
> more common features
> > into a separate document. The chairs would like the working group to
>
On May 25, 2021, at 17:16, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
> All
>
> The authors took the advice from the working group and extracted the more
> common features
> into a separate document. The chairs would like the working group to give
> some comments, as
> we feel a document like this should be
All
The authors took the advice from the working group and extracted the more
common features
into a separate document. The chairs would like the working group to give
some comments, as
we feel a document like this should be considered for adoption.
