[DNSOP] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7871 (4736)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7871, "Client Subnet in DNS Queries". -- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7871=4736 -- Type: Editorial Reported by:

[DNSOP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7871 (4735)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7871, "Client Subnet in DNS Queries". -- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7871=4735 -- Type: Technical Reported by:

Re: [DNSOP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with COMMENT)

Badly worded of mine... Firewalls drop/dropped EDNS0 packets which was the core issue -éric On 07/07/16 03:35, "Ray Bellis" wrote: > > >On 07/07/2016 10:31, Benoit Claise wrote: > >> Based on my operational experience, I have seen multiple DNSSEC >> packets dropped by

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> From: "Jiankang Yao" >>* My idea > >> I prefer multiple query sections (with some restrictions) >> and merged answers. > >> multiple query examples may be >>NAME A + NAME + MX >>NAME A + NAME + _443._tcp.NAME TLSA >>NAME A + NAME + _sip._udp.NAME

Re: [DNSOP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with COMMENT)

On 07/07/2016 10:31, Benoit Claise wrote: > Based on my operational experience, I have seen multiple DNSSEC > packets dropped by firewalls because they try to use EDNS0 rather > than fragmenting. Does your I-D also address this issue? This is the wrong way around - EDNS *relies upon*

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Regarding the format of EXTRA RRs, it's better to use a list of RRs rather than a list embedded in one RR. And a single label isn't enough, e.g. TLSA. So I suggest the presentation format should be like EXTRA typename. and the wire format should be a 16 bit type followed by an

[DNSOP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.)

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-song-dns-wireformat-http in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

Hi Bob, inline On 6 July 2016 at 01:17, Bob Harold wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:51 AM, IETF Secretariat < > ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> wrote: > >> >> The DNSOP WG has placed draft-song-dns-wireformat-http in state >> Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim