Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> The draft states that in rare cases sibling glue could be useful, as a
> result of cyclic dependency loops.
Interesting. Such dependency existed between two TLDs (IIRC
"edu" and "org") 20 or 30 years ago and I thought and still
think there are redundancy issues.
That
To be clear, I am not saying that RFC1034/1035 say that you /can/ use
QDCOUNT > 1. I am saying that they do /not/ say that you /can not/ use
QDCOUNT > 1.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 5:53 PM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Dick Franks wrote:
>
> >> So, there is no
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 09:15:35PM -0500, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Perhaps we'll find that we can't distinguish sibling glue from still
> required "orphan glue" (mention of which I see got removed from
> draft-02), and need the sibling glue as a last resort when the forward
> lookup of the
Dick Franks wrote:
>> So, there is no specification to mention queries with
>> QDCOUNT>1, either informatively, optionaly or normatively.
>> Then, 3425 titled "Obsoleting IQUERY" updated 1035.
>> As such, after 3425, QDCOUNT nomatively must always be 1.
The last statement is informatively
Did you really intend to make the message hard to read? Really
"font-size:small”?
Really grey instead of black "color:#33”? Please fix your MUA settings or
choose a different MUA that actually has sane settings.
Hi folks, we (finally) pu=
blished a new version of the domain verification
It appears that Shivan Kaul Sahib said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Hi folks, we (finally) published a new version of the domain verification
>techniques draft, now as intended-BCP. We've had some feedback from
>providers but would love for folks to review, especially people who would
>actually use it.
All
I was not being passive aggressive about the authors publishing their
update, I was reading the datatracker incorrectly from my phone.
However, since they now have published their update, let us do this WGLC.
Much has changed, mostly after feedback from previous
IETF meetings that this is
Hi folks, we (finally) published a new version of the domain verification
techniques draft, now as intended-BCP. We've had some feedback from
providers but would love for folks to review, especially people who would
actually use it.
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 at 11:15, wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft
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 : Domain Verification Techniques using DNS
Authors : Shivan Sahib
If we're looking for more counterexamples, there's also RFC7873#5.4
For servers with DNS Cookies enabled, the QUERY opcode behavior is
extended to support queries with an empty Question Section (a QDCOUNT
of zero (0)), provided that an OPT record is present with a COOKIE
On 16/02/2023 12:52, Dick Franks wrote:
The last statement is informatively and normatively mistaken.
The counterexample is to be found in RFC8490(5.4):
A DSO message begins with the standard twelve-byte DNS message header
[RFC1035] with the OPCODE field set to the DSO OPCODE (6).
On 16Feb23, Dick Franks allegedly wrote:
> The last statement is informatively and normatively mistaken.
> The counterexample is to be found in RFC8490(5.4):
>
> A DSO message begins with the standard twelve-byte DNS message header
> [RFC1035] with the OPCODE field set to the DSO OPCODE (6).
On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 at 01:14, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
>8
>
> So, there is no specification to mention queries with QDCOUNT>1,
> either informatively, optionaly or normatively.
>
> Then, 3425 titled "Obsoleting IQUERY" updated 1035.
>
> As such, after 3425, QDCOUNT nomatively must always be 1.
>
OH Apologies.
I had felt the authors published their new version, but I sent the wrong
draft message out.
Please ignore this and I'll stop trying to be useful today
tim
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 12:04 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> All
>
> The authors and the chairs feel this document has reached
All
The authors and the chairs feel this document has reached the stage where
it's ready for Working Group Last Call.
This starts a Working Group Last Call for:
draft-ietf-dnsop-domain-verification-techniques
Current versions of the draft is available here:
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 Multiple QTYPEs
Author : Ray Bellis
Filename:
Benno Overeinder wrote:
We would like to point out that discussions should be respectful
which is about the people and the most common and annoying
disrespectful behaviour in IETF is to make meaningless
comments without reading strongly related rfcs, IDs or
mails which is why we have been
All,
We would like to point out that discussions should be respectful and
about technical issues and not about the person.
Note that the DNSOP WG Chairs ensure that the IETF Guidelines for
Conduct, RFC 7154, are adhered to.
Thanks,
Benno, Suzanne and Tim
co-chairs DNSOP WG
On 16/02/2023
18 matches
Mail list logo
