I prefer a regex and I think that Dave's "_ta-.*" makes most sense. An
explanation that it is a regex and that the exact format of the name is found
in RFC 8145 is needed.
Mats
---
Mats Dufberg
DNS Specialist, IIS
Mobile: +46 73 065 3899
https://www.iis.se/en/
On 2018-07-25, 21:58, "DNSOP
In article <9ac469b7-031a-4d8c-53d0-a82abca0d...@dcrocker.net>,
Dave Crocker wrote:
>On 7/25/2018 10:59 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
>> Dot "." has special meaning in DNS, so I would prefer:
>>
>> Â Â _ta-*
>>
>> Not regex, but a common wildcard usage.
>
>wfm.
I suppose. A plausible actual regex
I like Bob's suggestion.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/25/2018 10:59 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
>
>> Dot "." has special meaning in DNS, so I would prefer:
>>
>> _ta-*
>>
>> Not regex, but a common wildcard usage.
>>
>
> wfm.
>
> anyone else care to chime in?
>
> d/
On 7/25/2018 10:59 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
Dot "." has special meaning in DNS, so I would prefer:
_ta-*
Not regex, but a common wildcard usage.
wfm.
anyone else care to chime in?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
On 7/25/2018 10:59 AM, Bob Harold wrote:
Dot "." has special meaning in DNS, so I would prefer:
_ta-*
Not regex, but a common wildcard usage.
wfm.
anyone else care to chime in?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 1:50 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/25/2018 2:32 AM, Mats Dufberg wrote:
> > _ta- should go into table 2 on page 9 of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf.
>
>
> Wow. This is a unique case, since it reserves essentially all of an
> even-more-subordinate namespace -- everything to
On 7/25/2018 2:32 AM, Mats Dufberg wrote:
_ta- should go into table 2 on page 9 of draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf.
Wow. This is a unique case, since it reserves essentially all of an
even-more-subordinate namespace -- everything to the right of that dash.
Theoretically it isn't that
/no/ changes to the spec, except to correct the typo Bob Harold spotted.
Correct?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> For completeness:
>
> Absent further discussion and agreement in the wg, I taking this
> exchange as producing /no/ changes to the spec.
>
> d/
>
>
>
For completeness:
Absent further discussion and agreement in the wg, I taking this
exchange as producing /no/ changes to the spec.
d/
On 7/24/2018 7:58 AM, John Levine wrote:
In article <9da145f4-df6a-4bfa-b3c9-56027b228...@iis.se> you write:
-=-=-=-=-=-
In table 2 on page 9, the
RFC 8145 defines the _ta- node name:
A Key Tag query consists of a standard DNS query of type NULL and of
class IN [RFC1035].
The first component of the query name is the string "_ta-" followed
by a sorted, hyphen-separated list of hexadecimal-encoded Key Tag
values. The zone
On 7/23/2018 2:22 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
ooks like a typo. That has been there for a bit.
...
The table on page 6 includes:
"._protoB._service2"
Given that it's the only one like that, yes, it should be changed.
Just to bikeshed the issue, note that it's not 'wrong' to have
In article <9da145f4-df6a-4bfa-b3c9-56027b228...@iis.se> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>In table 2 on page 9, the draft refers to RFC 2782 for _dccp and _sctp (SRV),
>but those “_node names”
>are not even mentioned in the RFC. Are they defined elsewhere?
RFC 2782 says that SRV's are named with _proto
Bob
Looks like a typo. That has been there for a bit.
Tim
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 12:11 PM wrote:
>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Domain
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 12:11 PM wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the
> IETF.
>
> Title : DNS Scoped Data Through "Underscore" Naming of
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
