Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Hi, This is quite a helpful response, thanks. I wonder whether more of it ought to go in discussion (or a new draft), however. For I'm struck by this: On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 06:42:18PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote: > > always be generated using only local data, and either contains the > > answer

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Andrew Sullivan wrote: ... we should note that an upward or sideways or other non-downward referral is a sign of misconfiguration and must be treated as SERVFAIL. I am a little uncomfortable with using this document to specify protocol behaviour as opposed to specifying protocol behaviour

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Hi, On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 06:04:06PM -0800, Paul Vixie wrote: > > they must be ignored, because they could constitute part of a referral loop. > valid referrals are to descendants not ancestors or cousins. […] > we should note that an upward or sideways or other non-downward referral is > a

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:18:31PM +0800, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: This is an upward referral and I tought it was frowned upon since the ISPrime attack (MUST NOT? SHOULD NOT?) I tend to

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 09:18:31PM +0800, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > This is an upward referral and I tought it was frowned upon since the > ISPrime attack (MUST NOT? SHOULD NOT?) > I tend to agree, but it's certainly

Re: [DNSOP] DINRG update

On 11/13/17 8:17 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > This is showing up on the agenda as canceled. Yes, this is an informal side meeting - the actual session is canceled. Melinda signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ DNSOP mailing list

Re: [DNSOP] DINRG update

On Nov 13, 2017, at 8:12 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: > With regrets to the fine folks of dnsop, we've scheduled the > dinrg side meeting from 9:30 - 12:00 this morning. We realize > that there are many people in the dns community who are > interested in decentralized

[DNSOP] DINRG update

With regrets to the fine folks of dnsop, we've scheduled the dinrg side meeting from 9:30 - 12:00 this morning. We realize that there are many people in the dns community who are interested in decentralized approaches to naming but scheduling during this meeting has been exceptionally difficult.

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 02:54:46AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote a message of 74 lines which said: The second is a non-delegation referral (sometimes described as "referral response", as distinct from the delegation response above),

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal and DNAME

An unbounded number of AS112 operators, not an inbound number. I apologise to all present for sending mail to dnsop from a phone without taking more time to check for autocorrect lunacy. On Nov 12, 2017, at 11:26, Joe Abley wrote: On Nov 12, 2017, at 10:51, Kim Davies

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 02:54:46AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote a message of 74 lines which said: > The second is a non-delegation referral (sometimes described as > "referral response", as distinct from the delegation response > above), where the server is not

Re: [DNSOP] draft-wkumari-dnsop-internal and DNAME

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 10:50:51AM +0800, Kim Davies wrote a message of 32 lines which said: > Just one of the many things that would need to be looked at is how > to transmit DNAME provisioning requests via EPP. I don't know if > there is even an EPP mapping for this.

[DNSOP] Jabber Scribes and Minute takers for DNSOP on Monday

Hi We're sending out the note requesting jabber scribes and minute takers for DNSOP. Also, there are a few laggards who need to send slides in. You know whom you are. See you bright and early Monday Morning! thanks, tim/suzanne ___ DNSOP mailing