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 Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : Child To Parent Synchronization in DNS
Author : Wes Hardaker
Filename
Hi Patrik,
At 23:15 15-02-2014, Patrik Fältström wrote:
The largest problem for IETF and DNS innovation is that the consensus in
IETF seems to be that innovation of DNS is not possible unless it
involves reuse of the TXT resource record.
In other words, it is only possible to use one of
the
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:57:40PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
Sure. If dnsop wants to do this work, that's fine.
No. This was precisely my point. For most of the stuff people want,
the work should be in a WG that does not have DNS in its name.
That's the _key_ point. We protocol weenies need
On Feb 18, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
No. This was precisely my point. For most of the stuff people want,
the work should be in a WG that does not have DNS in its name.
That's the _key_ point. We protocol weenies need to get out of our
comfy chair
Hi Andrew,
At 08:44 17-02-2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I am not convinced that DNS belongs in the Internet area. It's an
application. I think if we need a place to discuss broader DNS
innovation, then it should be in Applications.
To say it differently, DNS has a higher impact on
On Feb 18, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Suzanne Woolf suzworldw...@gmail.com wrote:
Is that a problem you (generically, not just Andrew) see as a concern? If so,
do you see any general principles for navigating it?
I certainly think it's an important concern. We have the same problem with
DHCP,
On 2014-02-18, at 10:54, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Seriously, it may take some effort to get things deployed but that is not an
insurmountable task [1]. One of the problems is that there isn't any money
in doing that.
[...]
1. I actually looked into it some time back.
I had some
In message 5b5ae40c-6d26-419c-a16a-392af2c33...@hopcount.ca, Joe Abley writes
:
On 2014-02-18, at 10:54, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Seriously, it may take some effort to get things deployed but that is
not an insurmountable task [1]. One of the problems is that there isn't
any money in
On 2014-02-18 19:58, Joe Abley wrote:
I appreciate that knowing the process made things easier (mainly; I
was wrong about some things and had to be educated). But I would not
describe the process as difficult, and certainly not insurmountable.
Agree, and correct (I did the same with URI
On 19Feb14, Mark Andrews allegedly wrote:
The process for getting a new type hasn't been *hard* for a decade
now.
Nameserver developers have been deploying new types quickly for
over a decade now.
Recursive servers have had the bugs w.r.t. handling unknown types
removed over a decade
In message 20140218234946.10461.qm...@f5-external.bushwire.net, Mark Delany
writes:
On 19Feb14, Mark Andrews allegedly wrote:
The process for getting a new type hasn't been *hard* for a decade
now.
Nameserver developers have been deploying new types quickly for
over a decade now.
I see now that some newer CPE defaults to 8.8.8.8 - at least that
eliminates the local implementation bugs...
And I would have gone ahead and implemented it as Autralian Consumer
Law
Probably true for most jurisdictions running u-verse modems too as
they too had breakage in my (not very
in OID space, It was my experience that Russ ran the registry pretty
open-minded. Its a classic dewey-decimal growing numberfield, so the cost
burden of carving out a new OID is low, and he was minded to ask basic
questions, steer you, but in the end, assign a unique value for the wider
public
In message cakr6gn3fsneterut_mmtwbzoeppjoi-efbiejcp9ug6n7f9...@mail.gmail.com
, George Michaelson writes:
in OID space, It was my experience that Russ ran the registry pretty
open-minded. Its a classic dewey-decimal growing numberfield, so the cost
burden of carving out a new OID is low, and
Hi Joe,
At 10:58 18-02-2014, Joe Abley wrote:
I had some experience with this recently with the document that
became RFC 7043.
Code-point assignment was swift. Implementation in major nameservers
was swift (although one or two of them left the types commented out
in the source until the RFC
15 matches
Mail list logo
