Taking another look at this now that the IETF dust has settled.
First, when I wrote my earlier note on the 21st, I had just
glanced through the spec, not studied it, and was under the
impression that either the SRV entries and registry would not be
affected or that all entries in the SRV registry
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Given the use case in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http, defining
a new media type seems like overkill, particularly given that it will
be transporting *the exact same* data as an existing media type.
Instead, an optional parameter could be added to the
application/dns-ud
Given the use case in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http, defining a new
media type seems like overkill, particularly given that it will be transporting
*the exact same* data as an existing media type. Instead, an optional parameter
could be added to the application/dns-udpwireformat registrat
On 3/25/2018 6:15 PM, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
Mike,
This is a domain extortion attempt, they want you to buy the domain at
inflated price
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/56290/is-this-domain-registration-service-email-a-scam#56304
Olafur
Thanks! I figured it had to be somethi
Mike,
This is a domain extortion attempt, they want you to buy the domain at
inflated price
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/56290/is-this-domain-registration-service-email-a-scam#56304
Olafur
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:04 PM, Michael StJohns
wrote:
> Apologies for dumping this he
Apologies for dumping this here, but I figured if anyone had a clue
they'd probably be on this list. Is anyone familiar with
mopo-io.com.cn? Is this a legitimate email (or company)? If not, its
one of the better phishing emails I've seen.
Thanks - Mike
Forwarded Message
The current text is:
"A configured DNSKEY RR or DS RR hash of a DNSKEY RR. A
validating security-aware resolver uses this public key or hash as
a starting point for building the authentication chain to a signed
DNS response." (Quoted from , Section 2)
The WG has has a preference for quoting fro
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 02:04:02PM -0400, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> I went to go dig into this and in the process of producing a list I found
> that the list was longer than I imagined, and that there are more
> categories of documents that don't contribute to the camel than I thought.
Hi Matthew,
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 WG of the IETF.
Title : DNS Scoped Data Through '_Underscore' Naming of
Attribute Leaves
Author : Dave Crocker
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018, Evan Hunt wrote:
I think it would help if there were more clarity on what exactly is being
proposed, other than adding the words "obsolete" or "deprecated" to a list
of RRtypes on a website somewhere. The draft didn't seem to have
particularly clear guidance to implementers.
On 25 Mar 2018, at 9:05, Evan Hunt wrote:
I think it would help if there were more clarity on what exactly is
being
proposed, other than adding the words "obsolete" or "deprecated" to a
list
of RRtypes on a website somewhere. The draft didn't seem to have
particularly clear guidance to impleme
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 06:48:35AM -0700, Joe Abley wrote:
> I'm actually surprised to see that support for rarely-used RRTypes is
> really upsetting the camel.
It's an interesting object lesson in the complexity of unloading camels,
though. (Perhaps it's time to add something about "the eye of a
12 matches
Mail list logo
