Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

In message

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

Very interesting, so BIND already pushes records for the obvious optimisation cases. Did you do any research on how many clients use these records (thus don't follow up with an extra query) ? Perhaps it would be helpful to look at the it from different perspectives. As an authoritative DNS

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

Named returns associated * A/ records with MX lookups if available * A/ records with SRV lookups if available * SRV/A/ records with NAPTR lookups if available * A/ records with NAPTR lookups if available As of 9.11 named returns associated * A//TLSA records with MX lookups

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 18 Aug 2016, at 11:29, Marek Vavruša wrote: > >> Or SRV. > > > I disagree that a user, when asking for a SRV record, doesn't know that it > is likely that they would want the results for the information that comes >

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

On 18 Aug 2016, at 11:29, Marek Vavruša wrote: Or SRV. I disagree that a user, when asking for a SRV record, doesn't know that it is likely that they would want the results for the information that comes back in the RDATA. These are cases where authoritative/resolver adding interesting

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

Or SRV. These are cases where authoritative/resolver adding interesting records as additionals works better. Authoritatives have been doing that with extra SOA/NS in authority for a while (for positive answers), but now resolvers can hardly use them if these records are not secure. Regardless of

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

>Are there QTYPEs that, when I ask for them, I won't know that I should >also ask for the related info? NAPTR ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03

Mark and I sat down and talked about this draft in Berlin, and I have some strong concerns about specific sections (3 and 10), but I also love large parts of the draft. I have a (rather) large sheet of edits for him that I promised him I would get to him. I have failed him. I will effort

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

On 18 Aug 2016, at 8:04, Matthew Pounsett wrote: On 18 August 2016 at 10:40, Paul Hoffman wrote: Are there QTYPEs that, when I ask for them, I won't know that I should also ask for the related info? Probably not. However, there may be owner names you don't know you

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

On 18 August 2016 at 10:40, Paul Hoffman wrote: > On 18 Aug 2016, at 7:19, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > > On 18 August 2016 at 01:33, william manning >> wrote: >> >> please help me get over the feeling that this argument is founded on the >>> same

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03

In message , Edward Lewis writes: > > ## A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers - Failure To Respond. > ## draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03 > > I have a lot of high-level concerns with this document. > > ##1.

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

On 18 Aug 2016, at 7:19, Matthew Pounsett wrote: On 18 August 2016 at 01:33, william manning wrote: please help me get over the feeling that this argument is founded on the same logic as that used by folks who "know" I might want, no NEED that extra bit of email

[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03

## A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers - Failure To Respond. ## draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue-03 I have a lot of high-level concerns with this document. ##1. Introduction ## ## The DNS [RFC1034], [RFC1035] is a query / response protocol. Failure ## to respond

Re: [DNSOP] The Larger Discussion on Differences in Response Drafts

On 18 August 2016 at 01:33, william manning wrote: > please help me get over the feeling that this argument is founded on the > same logic as that used by folks who "know" I might want, no NEED that > extra bit of email in my inbox. As I read it, it sounds like DNS

[DNSOP] Missing proceedings from Berlin.

Hi there, It seems that all of the proceedings (agenda / minutes / slides, etc) from Berlin have disappeared. I suspect that this was caused by: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg17807.html and didn't come back when:

[DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-00

Comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-session-signal-00 (Finally reading a document before all deadlines pass. See, Tim, I can be good.) Overall, defining session layer semantics in the DNS is something significant. In my estimation, one of the DNS architecture's weakest points is the management of