I have a different perspective on this question Mark.
Firstly, I find use of .magic as the extreme RHS of a name, to force
special behaviour architecturally disqueting.
I really do worry about what we think we're building when we encode this
behaviour into name strings. It leads to all kinds of
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 : A Common Operational Problem in DNS Servers - Failure
To Respond.
Author : M.
Most of the tests now contain references to the relevent sections
of the RFCs being tested.
Seperated the tests that cover Basic DNS behaviour and Extended DNS
behaviour into two sub sections.
Yes, the references to RFC5395 needs to be updated to the latest
RFC6195 before anyone tells me.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/26/2015 06:38 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> Given this context, I was disturbed to hear the design team presentati
on
> in Yokohama
>
So you mean there's an already working team on the revision of RFC6761,
and that team had the time to
Hi Patrik,
On 25 Nov 2015, at 0:40, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> I have read this draft and have a number of comments. I can not say these are
> the only ones, but at least some :-)
>
> The dominant protocol for name resolution on the Internet is the
> Domain Name System (DNS). However, other
On 26 Nov 2015, at 18:05, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2015, at 0:40, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
>> I have read this draft and have a number of comments. I can not say these
>> are the only ones, but at least some :-)
>>
>> The dominant protocol for name resolution on the Internet is the
>>
