On Jan 21, 2015, at 10:27 AM, Niall O'Reilly niall.orei...@ucd.ie wrote:
I'ld suggest using the following text from RFC1034 (section 4.2.1):
The authoritative data for a zone is simply all of the RRs attached to
all of the nodes from the top node of the zone down to leaf nodes or
nodes
At Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:16:47 -0800,
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings again. Andrew, Kazunori, and I have done a massive
revision on the DNS terminology draft based on the input we got on
the -00. We're sure we have further to go,
So far, great job!
but we wanted people to
look over the new
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Paul Vixie wrote:
even if changing TCP/53's connection semantics could be done without
creating new DoS vectors, the small number of DNS TCP initiators and
responders who will ever be upgraded
responders do not need to be upgraded for this, as we found out on this
list
Paul Wouters mailto:p...@nohats.ca
Wednesday, January 21, 2015 8:38 AM
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015, Paul Vixie wrote:
even if changing TCP/53's connection semantics could be done without
creating new DoS vectors, the small number of DNS TCP initiators and
responders who will ever be upgraded
Thanks for the suggestions! However:
On Jan 21, 2015, at 6:52 AM, Colm MacCárthaigh c...@allcosts.net wrote:
RRSet: Are the RRs in an RRSet required to have different data? For
types such as A//SRV/MX this makes sense, but maybe not for TXT. I
also think views and other implementation
Colm MacCárthaigh mailto:c...@allcosts.net
Wednesday, January 21, 2015 8:36 AM
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org
mailto:p...@redbarn.org wrote:
if their server returns only one RR at a time, then there are ten
RRsets, as you say. however, such a
Colm MacCárthaigh c...@allcosts.net wrote:
TTL: It might be worth using the word 'maximum' in relation to the
TTL; I think there is consensus that TTLs may be truncated.
Yes, due to memory pressure, server restarts, administrative fiat,
DNSSEC (RFC 4035 section 5.3.3), etc.
Tony.
--
Paul Wouters p...@nohats.ca wrote:
responders do not need to be upgraded for this, as we found out on this
list about two years ago when Mark Andrews patched dig and I ran a test
with that.
Not entirely true. Persistent TCP works but it needs some performance
engineering.
Responders need to
Ray Bellis mailto:ray.bel...@nominet.org.uk
Wednesday, January 21, 2015 1:30 AM
TCP/53 is already persistent, it just happens most clients don't take
advantage of that feature.
if they did, then those initiators would either be a DoS from the
responder's point of view, or a DoS from other
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
RRSet: Are the RRs in an RRSet required to have different data? For
types such as A//SRV/MX this makes sense, but maybe not for TXT. I
also think views and other implementation specific features confuse
things here. A
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:53 PM, John Heidemann jo...@isi.edu wrote:
I don't see how DoS is an argument against TCP for DNS. (Unless one
assumes hardware and software at the servers is fixed to something like
2004 standards.) What am I missing?
What's the average client load expected (number
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 09:58:32AM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote:
Olafur Gudmundsson mailto:o...@ogud.com
Friday, January 16, 2015 7:51 AM
...
One of the oldest ideas on that was from Andreas Gustafsson was to wrap
XFR transmission inside compressed transmission.
late BIND4 and early
John Heidemann mailto:jo...@isi.edu
Wednesday, January 21, 2015 1:53 PM
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:30:44 +, Ray Bellis wrote:
I want to restate this, because people often confuse current practice
with current specifications:
DNS over TCP/53 is *already* persistent. No *protocol* changes
Greetings again. This is a periodic reminder that the documents that this WG is
working on, and may or may not be working on in the future, is at
https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/dnsop/doclist.html
It helps the WG chairs to know which documents have enough people willing to
review them to move
Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com writes:
I wanted to thank all the folks who offered comments, edits, and text
for this document.
Ditto! Documents are always better after lots of feedback, so thank you
to everyone that contributed to the document.
--
Wes Hardaker
Parsons
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:58:32 -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 4:53 PM, John Heidemann jo...@isi.edu wrote:
I don't see how DoS is an argument against TCP for DNS. (Unless one
assumes hardware and software at the servers is fixed to something like
2004 standards.) What
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : AS112 Nameserver Operations
Authors : Joe Abley
William
Paul,
Let me clarify things a bit,
Thanks very much for this note. The issue of the ZSK length is something that
has popped up on various radars on various occasions and given the recent
publicity over at imperialviolet and sockpuppet on 1024 bit RSA, it'd be good
to explore this in more
Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-06: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:30:44 +, Ray Bellis wrote:
i realize that no votes aren't counted. but that's going to be my input if
any document along the lines of adding persistence to tcp/53 is adopted by
the WG. so, for full disclosure, i wanted to weigh in at this stage.
TCP/53 is already
i realize that no votes aren't counted. but that's going to be my input if
any document along the lines of adding persistence to tcp/53 is adopted by
the WG. so, for full disclosure, i wanted to weigh in at this stage.
TCP/53 is already persistent, it just happens most clients don't take
I agree with Paul Hoffman. While I think draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive is
good, even the simpler draft-bellis-dnsop-connection-close would be much
better than the current situation, so I support its adoption.
DW
On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:21 AM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
On
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Paul Vixie wrote:
my input is not a direct answer to either question, but, may be relevant.
my view is: we can't reliably signal this capability, so any option we
pursue will create a DoS vector for either new or old initiators or
responders, and the right answer is to
Colm MacCárthaigh mailto:c...@allcosts.net
Wednesday, January 21, 2015 6:52 AM
RRSet: Are the RRs in an RRSet required to have different data? For
types such as A//SRV/MX this makes sense, but maybe not for TXT. I
also think views and other implementation specific features confuse
24 matches
Mail list logo
