On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 10:32:17PM +0200, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 12:57 +0100, alessan...@ghedini.me wrote:
> > Are you saying we shouldn't have a list of allowed RR types at all and just
> > limiting to QUERY messages is enough? I asked this question at the last
> > meeting
On Thu, 2020-07-30 at 02:58 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
> > Then there is RRSIG, which seems bit alarming. While direct queries
> > should not do anything special, I noticed two troublesome properties:
> >
> > 1) The answers can be pretty large (amplification hazard with
Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
>
> Then there is RRSIG, which seems bit alarming. While direct queries
> should not do anything special, I noticed two troublesome properties:
>
> 1) The answers can be pretty large (amplification hazard with UDP).
> 2) The queries can be really slow compared to other
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:57:02PM +0100, alessan...@ghedini.me wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 10:26:52PM +0300, Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:00:43PM -0400, Brian Haberman wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > I have a proposal for the working group that I would like some
> >
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:00:43PM -0400, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have a proposal for the working group that I would like some
> feedback on. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dprive-early-data-00
> calls out the need for an IANA registry to track which RR Types are
> allowed
Hi all,
I have a proposal for the working group that I would like some
feedback on. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dprive-early-data-00
calls out the need for an IANA registry to track which RR Types are
allowed to be carried as early data during the TLS session establishment
process.
