its maybe me, I'm having a bad (no?) hair day, I need more caffiene.. but
this feels like a "oh can't we just stop" moment.
MUST in protocols terms is good: its proscriptive, definitive language
around on-the-wire.
MUST in operations terms is getting way off IETF charter, even with an ops
focus.
True, the MX case falls within the intersection of DNS and SMTP standards, and
thus must conform to the naming restrictions of both. That was a bad example
and I shouldn't have cited it.
- Kevin
-Origin
In message , "Darcy Kevin
(FCA)" writes:
> Thats a very good catch. Restrictions on *hostnames* are different than
> restrictions on *domain*names*. The language below, from RFC 2181,
> Section 11 (incorrectly cited as RFC 2182, Section 11, in the draft; but
> RFC 2182 has no Section 11), should
In message ,
Jacques Latour writes:
> Hi,
>
> Sent something relating to this on DNS-OARC this morning, but it seems to
> be legit to have delegation for a _tcp.example.ca, which fails the syntax
> requirements defined in section 8.1. Illegal characters MUST NOT be in
> the domain name".
>
> A
That’s a very good catch. Restrictions on *hostnames* are different than
restrictions on *domain*names*. The language below, from RFC 2181, Section 11
(incorrectly cited as RFC 2182, Section 11, in the draft; but RFC 2182 has no
Section 11), should be controlling, and the other references (to RF
Hi,
Sent something relating to this on DNS-OARC this morning, but it seems to be
legit to have delegation for a “_tcp.example.ca”, which fails the syntax
requirements defined in section “8.1. Illegal characters MUST NOT be in the
domain name".
A delegation can happen to a valid domain na
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:37:09AM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Or just having the TCP implementation in BIND get improved as it’s clear there
> are some more people pushing in this direction. I’m looking at just putting
> something like DNSDIST on my hosts to process TCP and balance it across
> mu
Bert,
At 2016-02-08 22:55:44 +0100
bert hubert wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:37:09AM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > Or just having the TCP implementation in BIND get improved as it’s clear
> > there
> > are some more people pushing in this direction. I’m looking at just putting
> > someth
