> -Original Message-
> From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jan Vcelák
> Sent: November-08-15 3:50 PM
> To: Olafur Gudmundsson; Shane Kerr
> Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-ogud-dnsop-maintain-ds
> in state "Candidate for WG
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Mark Andrews wrote:
This example as the wrong length unless you want every from wire
reader to be re-written to not look for the root label. Given the
comment about no compression pointers this should be wire format
not text format.
"com." has length 0x05 (0x03
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015, Mark Andrews wrote:
A DNS query that contains the CHAIN option MUST also have the DNSSEC
OK ("OK") bit set. If this bit is not set, or if the Checking
Disabled ("CD") bit is set, the CHAIN option received MUST be
ignored.
Why disabled on CD=1? If you have the
A DNS query that contains the CHAIN option MUST also have the DNSSEC
OK ("OK") bit set. If this bit is not set, or if the Checking
Disabled ("CD") bit is set, the CHAIN option received MUST be
ignored.
Why disabled on CD=1? If you have the contents cached and validated
already what
At Mon, 02 Nov 2015 11:47:26 -0500,
"Joe Abley" wrote:
> > - Section 3
> >
> > ANY queries are sometimes used to help mine authoritative-only DNS
> > servers for zone data, since they return all RRSets for a particular
> > owner name. A DNS zone maintainer might prefer
The time for the WGLC has ended, and while there is some contention,
there is also rough consensus to move this document forward. I will
point the IESG to the mail thread about the issue Tony raised in the
shepherd writeup.
IANA and given chain-query the EDNS Option Code of 13.
Paul has