Re: [DNSOP] on 'when to implement' (was: Re: Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel)

Reacting on the "when to implement" part of the subject, and speaking for NLnet Labs. On 08/05/2018 11:11, Peter van Dijk wrote: >> From implementors point, it makes little sense to start implementing >> before the protocol change is almost fully baked (aka WGLC and >> further), because until

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-12

Hi Benno, On 9 May 2018, at 09:12, Benno Overeinder wrote: > There are now 2 implementations of kskroll-sentinel: > 1) peer-reviewed and merged in the BIND master branch; > 2) released with Unbound 1.7.1 last week. > > (And the draft mentions the implemention early versions

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-12

To followup on myself, and was dropped with quoting email. On 09/05/2018 15:12, Benno Overeinder wrote: > > Implementation reports/observations for BIND and Unbound have been sent > to the mailing list. > For the future, if the DNSOP working group likes to see an implementation report in a

[DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-song-atr-large-resp-01.txt

Hi folks, I just update ATR-draft to 01 version with the help of some reviewers and their comments. I would like to ask if there are enough pepole here think it is a good document to work on. As background, ATR was firstly proposed on september 2017 to address Large DNS response issues in IPv6.

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel-12

Hi Job, While I do agree with you that having implementations early on is a very desirable requirement, though I would disagree with making it a hard requirement (see the case of aggressive negative caching and how it unfolded as an example), for any new idea brought to the IETF I would like