Re: [DNSOP] DNS Grease?

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:19 PM David Schinazi wrote: > I see, thanks for clarifying. So this proposal would require every > implementation that chooses to ever deploy a new codepoint to implement > this new extension, for all eternity. That seems brittle to me, as things > would break in the

Re: [DNSOP] DNS Grease?

> On 25 Apr 2024, at 07:59, Brian Dickson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 2:28 PM David Schinazi > wrote: > If I understand your proposal correctly, this would require the receiver to > support this new EDNS option in order to properly remove values that the > sender thought were

Re: [DNSOP] DNS Grease?

I see, thanks for clarifying. So this proposal would require every implementation that chooses to ever deploy a new codepoint to implement this new extension, for all eternity. That seems brittle to me, as things would break in the presence of a single lazy implementer. What made GREASE viable was

Re: [DNSOP] DNS Grease?

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 2:28 PM David Schinazi wrote: > If I understand your proposal correctly, this would require the receiver > to support this new EDNS option in order to properly remove values that the > sender thought were unused but that the receiver did not. Such a > requirement on

Re: [DNSOP] DNS Grease?

If I understand your proposal correctly, this would require the receiver to support this new EDNS option in order to properly remove values that the sender thought were unused but that the receiver did not. Such a requirement on receivers makes it impossible for the sender to know it can safely

Re: [DNSOP] DNS Grease?

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 7:11 AM Shumon Huque wrote: > Thanks for your comments David. I hope it will progress too, and good to > hear that that grease worked well for TLS and QUIC. > > On random vs reserved values, we do intend to propose some reserved ranges > (there is a placeholder section in

Re: [DNSOP] Editorial / OCD nit on draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify

Hi Warren, On 4/24/24 16:29, Warren Kumari wrote: While reading draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify - "Generalized DNS Notifications"  I noticed (in the Abstract): "This document extends the use of DNS NOTIFY ([RFC1996]

[DNSOP] Editorial / OCD nit on draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify

Hey there authors and WG, While reading draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify - "Generalized DNS Notifications" I noticed (in the Abstract): "This document extends the use of DNS NOTIFY ([RFC1996] beyond conventional zone

[DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-huque-dnsop-grease in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

The DNSOP WG has placed draft-huque-dnsop-grease in state Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huque-dnsop-grease/ ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org

[DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-hardaker-dnsop-must-not-sha1 in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

The DNSOP WG has placed draft-hardaker-dnsop-must-not-sha1 in state Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardaker-dnsop-must-not-sha1/ ___ DNSOP mailing list

[DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-hardaker-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

The DNSOP WG has placed draft-hardaker-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost in state Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski) The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardaker-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost/ ___ DNSOP mailing list