On 3 Jan 2018, at 1:11, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 02/01/2018 23:37, Paul Hoffman wrote:
This answer doesn't seem to fully address Robert's and Ray's
questions.
Why use an A/ query if you aren't going to do anything with the
result? If you are going to use A/, you have to tell resolvers
On 02/01/2018 23:37, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> This answer doesn't seem to fully address Robert's and Ray's questions.
> Why use an A/ query if you aren't going to do anything with the
> result? If you are going to use A/, you have to tell resolvers what
> to return in the results. Using a
> On 3 Jan 2018, at 1:33 pm, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
>> This answer doesn't seem to fully address Robert's and Ray's questions. Why
>> use an A/ query if you aren't going to do anything with the result? If
>> you are going to use A/, you have to tell resolvers what to
> This answer doesn't seem to fully address Robert's and Ray's questions. Why
> use an A/ query if you aren't going to do anything with the result? If
> you are going to use A/, you have to tell resolvers what to return in the
> results. Using a new RRtype would have clearer semantics.
On 23 Dec 2017, at 11:59, Geoff Huston wrote:
On 22 Dec 2017, at 8:44 am, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 21/12/2017 15:36, Robert Story wrote:
I reread the draft today, and noticed that two things aren't
specified.
The first is the contents of the A/ RRSET returned, and the
On 23 Dec 2017, at 11:59, Geoff Huston wrote:
In situations where a client may have multiple resolvers in their
local
/etc/resolv.conf configuration, and recursive resolvers may themselves
/use forwarders, it is not immediately obvious which resolver
generated the response, so I’m unsure of
> On 22 Dec 2017, at 8:44 am, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
>
>
> On 21/12/2017 15:36, Robert Story wrote:
>> I reread the draft today, and noticed that two things aren't specified.
>> The first is the contents of the A/ RRSET returned, and the second
>> is the TTL for the
On 21/12/2017 15:36, Robert Story wrote:
> I reread the draft today, and noticed that two things aren't specified.
> The first is the contents of the A/ RRSET returned, and the second
> is the TTL for the records.
>
> Maybe the A/ record values could be used to return additional
>
I reread the draft today, and noticed that two things aren't specified.
The first is the contents of the A/ RRSET returned, and the second
is the TTL for the records.
Maybe the A/ record values could be used to return additional
details? For example, whether or not the key is part of