I don’t personally find this proposal to be an improvement for clarity.
The fact that a client is SVCB-optional means, somewhat by definition, that
they allow not using the SVCB results. Saying that the client “MAY” doesn’t
really help; it’s the very definition of what SVCB-optional is. If the
So, here is my suggestion, for "a sentence (or possibly two) which only
clarify what is already written?":
In section 3:
If the client is SVCB-optional, and connecting using this list of
endpoints has failed, the client now attempts to use non-SVCB
connection modes.
becomes:
If the
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 10:43 AM Eric Orth wrote:
> I'm not sure what exactly is being changed or clarified with this
> suggestion. Section 9.5 already applies at SHOULD-level, whether
> cryptographically protected or not and whether the received records were
> AliasMode or ServiceMode.
>
The
Dear DNSOP WG,
We are planning our second DNSOP WG interim meeting for 2022 in the week
of 26-30 September.
The draft draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis is on the agenda for the interim
meeting:
- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/
Please fill in the Doodle poll to
Off-list:
> Can we "rescue" just the clarifications/corrections?
Yes, with an Internet Draft that would become an RFC later. Brian pretty much
refuses to do this kind of thing, so you should consider doing it yourself.
--Paul
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
*Reminder: Deadline for OARC 39 abstract submission - September 06, 23:59
UTC *
Please note that, we are looking for contributions and remote participation
is actively supported
---
OARC 39 will be a two-day hybrid meeting held on* 22 & 23 October in
Belgrade, Serbia *at 10:00 AM (Local time
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 01:39:32AM -0700, Brian Dickson wrote:
> Here are some proposed text changes, per Warren's invitation to send text:
>
> In section 1.2, change:
>
> 2. TargetName: The domain name of either the alias target (for
>AliasMode) or the alternative endpoint (for
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 4:39 AM, Brian Dickson <
brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here are some proposed text changes, per Warren's invitation to send text:
>
Um, no. Warren said: "can we craft a sentence (or possibly two) which only
clarify what is already written?". This is a
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022, at 18:39, Brian Dickson wrote:
> One additional suggested addition to the end of section 3.1 is:
>>If DNS responses are cryptographically protected, and at least
>>one HTTPS AliasMode record has been received successfully,
>>clients MAY apply Section 9.5 (HSTS
Here are some proposed text changes, per Warren's invitation to send text:
In section 1.2, change:
2. TargetName: The domain name of either the alias target (for
AliasMode) or the alternative endpoint (for ServiceMode).
to:
2. TargetName: Either the domain name of the alias target
Howdy,
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 8:08 AM wrote:
> 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 Glue Requirements in Referral Responses
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
