All,
Thanks for the lively discussion on this point….after reviewing the thread, the
editors, the chairs, and the AD (Warren) felt that there was consensus support
for the new language proposed by the editors defining “class," but controversy
about the additional language proposed by Paul.
Hi,
> On Sep 10, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> I agree with Paul Vixie that classes were never defined well enough to
>> be made to work properly, at least at Internet scale.
>
> this thread has further cemented my prejudice against CLASS.
> On 11 Sep 2018, at 7:39 am, John Levine wrote:
>
> In article <20180910165922.ga31...@isc.org> you write:
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:48:05AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I agree with Paul Vixie that classes were never defined well enough to
be made to work
In article <20180910165922.ga31...@isc.org> you write:
>On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:48:05AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> > I agree with Paul Vixie that classes were never defined well enough to
>> > be made to work properly, at least at Internet scale.
Agreed. Since it's
And part of not making that too difficult is making new types IN specific by
default. You need to argue for class agnostic.
You can always replicate a class specific type in a new class. You can’t go
from class agnostic to class specific.
--
Mark Andrews
> On 11 Sep 2018, at 02:59, Evan
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 09:48:05AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > I agree with Paul Vixie that classes were never defined well enough to
> > be made to work properly, at least at Internet scale.
>
> this thread has further cemented my prejudice against CLASS.
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
...
I agree with Paul Vixie that classes were never defined well enough to
be made to work properly, at least at Internet scale.
this thread has further cemented my prejudice against CLASS. however, it
has also motivated me to define it well enough that we can
I have to disagree. Classes could quite easily be made to work at internet
scale.
The only thing that would cause issues is vendors that have taken short cuts.
Is it that hard to add root.hint for class10 when we want to use class10?
--
Mark Andrews
> On 10 Sep 2018, at 22:55, Andrew
Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 12:29:30AM -0400, StJohns, Michael wrote:
> Actually, 5.2 suggests that a master file (not zone) should contain a
> single class and single SOA record. That’s not the same thing as limiting
> a zone to a single class AFAICT.
I believe it is the same
In article
you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Actually, 5.2 suggests that a master file (not zone) should contain a
>single class and single SOA record. That’s not the same thing as limiting
>a zone to a single class AFAICT.
(catching up)
NS records are class specific so, except maybe at the root, a
Paul Vixie wrote:
> Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> >
> > Here's the definition that the authors would like to add to the
> > document:
> >
> >
> > Class:
> > A class "identifies a protocol family or instance of a protocol"
> > (Quoted from [RFC1034], Section 3.6). "The DNS tags all data
> >
according to
the doc. Thus my proposed wording. Is anyone arguing that the spec is coherent
on this topic? If not let's move on.
- Original Message -
From: "StJohns, Michael"
Sent: 9/4/18 - 1:29 PM
To: Mark Andrews
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Brief addition to terminology
Actually it is. A master file is a zone transfer mechanism.
Mark
> On 4 Sep 2018, at 2:29 pm, StJohns, Michael wrote:
>
> Actually, 5.2 suggests that a master file (not zone) should contain a single
> class and single SOA record. That’s not the same thing as limiting a zone to
> a single
Actually, 5.2 suggests that a master file (not zone) should contain a
single class and single SOA record. That’s not the same thing as limiting
a zone to a single class AFAICT.
Mike
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 18:49 Mark Andrews wrote:
> RFC 1035 Section 5.2 limits a zone to be single class.
>
>
RFC 1035 Section 5.2 limits a zone to be single class.
> On 4 Sep 2018, at 1:34 am, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>
>
> Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> During the IESG review, Adam Roach noticed that
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis talked about “class" but never defined
>> it. This seemed to
Suzanne Woolf wrote:
Hi all,
During the IESG review, Adam Roach noticed that
draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis talked about “class" but never defined
it. This seemed to the authors and chairs like a reasonable thing to
fix. It’s also important enough that we want WG review, but not
extensive
16 matches
Mail list logo
