Thanks Brian for your comments.
Currently the draft only allows zoneversion extension for records in
the ANSWER section of the response. But you're right that even there
we could have records from different zones.
For the sake of simplicity I'd prefer to clarify the text and declaring
such case
Top-reply (to avoid adding to confusion by attempting to add in-line
commentary of uncertain value):
I also agree that this is very valuable and definitely helpful for
diagnostics.
I think there are a number of edge cases, for which disambiguation might be
helpful.
Apologies if this seems to add
Hi Joe, thanks for your comments. Answers inline:
On 14:16 27/04, Joe Abley wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 23:07, Suzanne Woolf <[swo...@pir.org](mailto:On Wed,
> Apr 26, 2023 at 23:07, Suzanne Woolf < wrote:
>
> > This email begins a Working Group Last Call for
> >
Yes, that's pretty succinct and clear.
G
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023, 04:26 Hugo Salgado, wrote:
> Thanks a lot George for your comments.
> About this suggestion:
>
> On 14:29 27/04, George Michaelson wrote:
> > It's a debug tool. It isn't going to be something I expect to use, but
> > I like the idea
Thanks a lot George for your comments.
About this suggestion:
On 14:29 27/04, George Michaelson wrote:
> It's a debug tool. It isn't going to be something I expect to use, but
> I like the idea if something goes awry in the responses I am seeing I
> can ask the authority to tell me what SOA
(speaking as a chair)
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 5:22 PM John R Levine wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2023, Miek Gieben wrote:
> >> I think it's an interesting idea but I also don't want to spend time on
> it
> >> if it's just going to be filed and forgotten.
> >
> > I looked into this for
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023, Miek Gieben wrote:
I think it's an interesting idea but I also don't want to spend time on it
if it's just going to be filed and forgotten.
I looked into this for https://github.com/miekg/dns
The option is trivial to implemented (in an auth server). I.e. seems similar
to
[ Quoting in "Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dns..." ]
It appears that Suzanne Woolf said:
Colleagues,
This email begins a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-02
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion/).
If you've reviewed this document and
It appears that Suzanne Woolf said:
>Colleagues,
>
>
>This email begins a Working Group Last Call for
>draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-02
>(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion/).
>
>If you've reviewed this document and think it's ready for publication, please
>let us
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 23:07, Suzanne Woolf <[swo...@pir.org](mailto:On Wed,
Apr 26, 2023 at 23:07, Suzanne Woolf < wrote:
> This email begins a Working Group Last Call for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-02
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion/).
>
> If you've
I've read this draft.
I think its a simple and straightforward proposal. It explicitly notes
the security issue that its not covered by DNSSEC, it has
implementations, and it had a good discussion run 2021/2022 which was
overwhelmingly positive.
I had no problems understanding the intent. its
Colleagues,
This email begins a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-02
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion/).
If you've reviewed this document and think it's ready for publication, please
let us and the WG know, by responding on-list to this
12 matches
Mail list logo
