On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 09:41:10PM +0200,
Daniel Migault mglt.i...@gmail.com wrote
a message of 63 lines which said:
Please find draft-mglt-dnsop-search-list-processing-00.txt [1]
a single label that is 63 characters or less, starts with a letter,
ends with a letter or digit, and has as
In message 20140507103639.ga28...@nic.fr, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 09:41:10PM +0200,
Daniel Migault mglt.i...@gmail.com wrote
a message of 63 lines which said:
Please find draft-mglt-dnsop-search-list-processing-00.txt [1]
a single label that is 63
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:32:46PM +1000,
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote
a message of 52 lines which said:
It's not forbidding single label domain names.
It does and it is explicit about it:
These rules do not make possible the resolution of TLD as Single-
Label Domain Name.
On May 6, 2014, at 21:44, Jiankang Yao ya...@cnnic.cn wrote:
One view about this issue based on the previous discussion years ago is that
the dns implementors may choose to tailor the dns response in their own way,
but ietf is unlikely to standardize it.
At the risk of repeating an unpopular
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:04:13AM -0400,
Edward Lewis edlewis.subscri...@cox.net wrote
a message of 105 lines which said:
to record the way in which the Internet is working
This is not standards, it is journalism :-)
If I were to document the way the Internet is really working, the RFC
On May 7, 2014, at 10:11, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
This is not standards, it is journalism :-)
If I were to document the way the Internet is really working, the RFC
would be full of do not forget to insert bugs here, please do not
document and throw a dice before making
On 7 May 2014, at 15:11, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
If I were to document the way the Internet is really working, the RFC
would be full of do not forget to insert bugs here, please do not
document and throw a dice before making a choice.
Surely the experience of getting
On Tue, 6 May 2014, Doug Barton wrote:
So NAT is an interesting case, since there's no doubt that the IETF dropped
the ball on that. But the problem there was not that the IETF chose not to
act in order to not support NAT, the problem there was that the collective
decision process failed by
On 6 May 2014, at 22:34, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
You could say that I'm arguing 'ad absurdum' here, but I'm not. There really
are such things as bad ideas, and it's perfectly reasonable for the IETF to
decide that something is a bad idea, and shouldn't be done. Or at least,
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 12:36:18PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
(a) use of edns-client-subnet effectively involves a large depth of
undocumented experience and knowledge about specific implementations and
where those specific implementations are used.
NAT *is* a bad idea. And the amount of
I think if we want good engineering then we should recommend on host or on net
validating resolvers.
I think if we want interoperability then we have to standardize anything
anybody is doing.
If ietf documents client-subnet then it should be an FYI. That's hardly a death
sentence... Look what
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:06:34PM +0200, P Vixie wrote:
If ietf documents client-subnet then it should be an FYI.
Can't do that. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6360, Conclusion of FYI RFC
Sub-Series.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Ouch. Well so if a large body of ietf participators think wide area rdns is a
bad idea and that this option should never be recommended then we would
presumably have to say so in the document which standardized the option.
Strange.
On May 7, 2014 7:09:26 PM CEST, Andrew Sullivan
This sounds to me like a) support for working on edns-client-subnet (and
possibly things like it in the future), with b) a resulting RFC as
Informational.
I've found this discussion very helpful in solidifying the thoughts Tim already
wrote about, particularly with regards to carrying out our
On 7 May 2014, at 13:12, P Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
Ouch. Well so if a large body of ietf participators think wide area rdns is a
bad idea and that this option should never be recommended then we would
presumably have to say so in the document which standardized the option.
Strange.
Joe... To clarify... Client subnet is not what I an complaining about. It's
wide area rdns itself that I think is a bad idea. One reason wide area rdns is
a bad idea is that it needs client subnet options.
Centralized rdns is not necessary and it makes the internet brittle. Better
alternatives
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:12:21PM +0200, P Vixie wrote:
Ouch. Well so if a large body of ietf participators think wide area rdns is a
bad idea and that this option should never be recommended then we would
presumably have to say so in the document which standardized the option.
Strange.
On May 7, 2014, at 10:23 AM, P Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
Joe... To clarify... Client subnet is not what I an complaining about. It's
wide area rdns itself that I think is a bad idea. One reason wide area rdns
is a bad idea is that it needs client subnet options.
Centralized rdns is
Dear Uncle Ben,
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:26:51PM +0200, P Vixie wrote:
The architectural context of a feature should not be divorced from its
specification. RFC is an imprimatur. With great power comes great
responsibility.
I disagree with this point of view. I see nothing at all wrong
On May 7, 2014, at 12:23 PM, P Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
Centralized rdns is not necessary and it makes the internet brittle. Better
alternatives exist. The architecture of DNS assumes localized rdns. If we're
going to document client subnet then all that advice will have to go into it.
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Dear Uncle Ben,
keep it civil, please.
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:26:51PM +0200, P Vixie wrote:
The architectural context of a feature should not be divorced from its
specification. RFC is an imprimatur. With great power comes great
responsibility.
I disagree
Dear colleagues,
On the principle that I should work on something instead of talking
about it, I had a look at draft-vandergaast-edns-client-subnet-02. I
have a couple questions and remarks.
First, I'm a little uncomfortable with optimized reply as the name
for this. It seems to me that one
On May 7, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Suzanne Woolf suzworldw...@gmail.com wrote:
This sounds to me like a) support for working on edns-client-subnet (and
possibly things like it in the future), with b) a resulting RFC as
Informational.
I've found this discussion very helpful in solidifying the
23 matches
Mail list logo
