Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional-07 vs. sibling glue

2023-02-20 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 09:15:35PM -0500, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > There are many more. We see a steady stream of sibling-glue-related > lookup failures, that are only resolved after going to the authoritative > source for the actual IP addresses of the nameservers in question. I undertook a

[DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for "DNS Glue Requirements in Referral Responses" (draft-ietf-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional)

2023-02-20 Thread Suzanne Woolf
Dear DNSOP WG, Following lengthy discussion, including the latest consultation with the. Working Group on bailiwick and in-domain/sibling name servers terminology, the authors and chairs believe this document is ready for Working Group Last Call. As described earlier,

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for "DNS Terminology" (draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis)

2023-02-20 Thread Sara Dickinson
Hi, LGTM. I’ve opened a small PR to just update the DoQ references now there is an RFC: https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis/pull/12 Regards Sara. > On 17 Feb 2023, at 15:51, Benno Overeinder wrote: > > Dear DNSOP WG, > > Following the latest consultation with the

[DNSOP] Generalized DNS Notifications (draft-thomassen-dnsop-generalized-dns-notify-01)

2023-02-20 Thread Peter Thomassen
Dear DNSOP, Thank you for the very helpful feedback provided by several people on the -00 revision back in November. Johan and I made changes to the document that incorporate the insights from the crowd, and resolved some other issues. The result is -01, attached below. If you are