On 7/24/23, 1:55 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Viktor Dukhovni"
wrote:
>2. That said, there are multiple ways to *distinguish* ENT vs. NXDOMAIN
>responses:
>
>a. Sentinel RTYPE for NXDOMAIN with just NSEC + RRSIG for ENT.
>b. Sentinel RTYPE for ENT with just NSEC
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 09:11:33AM +1000, George Michaelson wrote:
> if QDCOUNT is defined as [0|1] then we have 15 new bits of freedom in
> the header.
We don't actually have that freedom. There's no mechanism to make those
bits mean something other than a larger (invalid QDCOUNT) for a normal
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 5:09 PM Robert Edmonds wrote:
> George Michaelson wrote:
> > if QDCOUNT is defined as [0|1] then we have 15 new bits of freedom in
> > the header.
> >
> > What would be interesting uses of the flow-label? Oh wait.. that's
> > right, nobody really knows at scale how to use
I don't agree. My reasoning is that signals in the first 576 bytes are
more likely to pass through non-conforming systems based on length
alone. There is also John Scudder's observations on fast-path and
slow-path processing: if its inside the state you latch EARLY when you
see the packet, its far
George Michaelson wrote:
> if QDCOUNT is defined as [0|1] then we have 15 new bits of freedom in
> the header.
>
> What would be interesting uses of the flow-label? Oh wait.. that's
> right, nobody really knows at scale how to use flow-label either.
>
> I tend to "use it for 15 bits of
George Michaelson wrote on 2023-07-26 16:11:
...
maybe the truth is, we've got 15 bits of zero in the header forever, amen.
that's how i treated it when i crafted EDNS0. we'd have to negotiate any
new use, and we've since learned that billions of middleboxes will treat
that as a 16-bit
In the general case, you can't do anything with those bits for the same
practical reason why we can't decide to allow QDCOUNT > 1. Too many
existing servers expect that those bits can never be validly non-zero and
will have unpredictable behavior. It's already out-of-our-control ossified.
If we
> On 27 Jul 2023, at 09:20, Brian Dickson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 4:12 PM George Michaelson wrote:
> if QDCOUNT is defined as [0|1] then we have 15 new bits of freedom in
> the header.
>
> What would be interesting uses of the flow-label? Oh wait.. that's
> right, nobody
I like your idea!
Another one is to reserve n bits for the length of the
resolver/forwarder chain to the answer. if you pass it on, increment
the n bits. preserve it in the answer.
would permit authorities, and clients to know how long the chain is
behind the answers they see and questions made.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 4:12 PM George Michaelson wrote:
> if QDCOUNT is defined as [0|1] then we have 15 new bits of freedom in
> the header.
>
> What would be interesting uses of the flow-label? Oh wait.. that's
> right, nobody really knows at scale how to use flow-label either.
>
> I tend to
if QDCOUNT is defined as [0|1] then we have 15 new bits of freedom in
the header.
What would be interesting uses of the flow-label? Oh wait.. that's
right, nobody really knows at scale how to use flow-label either.
I tend to "use it for 15 bits of signalling" because there are a lot
of things I
Hi DNS community,
please find below the maprg agenda with at least two talks related to DNS.
Hope to see you all on Friday!
Mirja
On 26.07.23, 22:46, "Maprg on behalf of Mirja Kuehlewind"
wrote:
Hi all,
just a quick announcement about our final agenda for our maprg session on
Hi kc,
On 17/07/2023 21:41, k claffy wrote:
I agree it would greatly help to include the more precise terms.
Note that Scott's current EPP draft is still using this term,
citing the definition in 1912. Should the term be removed from
Scott's draft, or acknowledged that it is now historic?
The DNSOP WG has placed draft-bash-rfc7958bis in state
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bash-rfc7958bis/
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
The DNSOP WG has placed draft-bellis-dnsop-qdcount-is-one in state
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bellis-dnsop-qdcount-is-one/
Comment:
Waiting for revision
___
The DNSOP WG has placed draft-thomassen-dnsop-generalized-dns-notify in state
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-thomassen-dnsop-generalized-dns-notify/
___
DNSOP
Dear WG,
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback during the WGLC for the revised
lame delegation definition. With this email, we close the WGLC for
rfc8499bis.
With the discussion and feedback during the interim and with the WGLC on
the mailing list, the chairs have determined there is
Duane/Evan/Mukund/All,
What do feel is the consensus on lowering the value to 1 second ?
>From the previous suggested text:
Resolvers MUST cache resolution failures for at least 1 second.
The initial duration SHOULD be configurable by the operator. A
longer cache duration for
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Domain Name System
Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF.
Title : Structured Error Data for Filtered DNS
Authors : Dan Wing
on "mollify".
Viktor Dukhovni wrote on 2023-07-25 22:59:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 08:19:21PM -0700, Brian Dickson wrote:
At the name that does not exist, generate and sign (on the fly) a CNAME
record with RDATA of something like "nxname.empty.as112.arpa" (or something
functionally equivalent).
20 matches
Mail list logo
