On 13 May 2019, at 11:06, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> But I do have a question for the WG - should we add a text that would allow
> the “Expert Review” to formally
> DEPRECATE (as defined in this I-D) other RRTYPEs? This would make things
> much simpler in the
> future when we want to formally
On 13 May 2019, at 05:06, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
> But I do have a question for the WG - should we add a text that would allow
> the “Expert Review” to formally DEPRECATE (as defined in this I-D) other
> RRTYPEs?
I'm not sure an expert reviewer could or should be in a position to make that
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:21 AM Wessels, Duane
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestions. I think the first discussion needs to be whether
> there is support for better signals at the expense of possibly less privacy.
> My sense of the way things are today is that "privacy is king."
>
> DW
I
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:21 AM Wessels, Duane
wrote:
>
>
> > On May 13, 2019, at 10:17 AM, Brian Dickson <
> brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The original RFC 8145 gives the ability to gather trust anchor signal
> data.
> >
> > There are limitations related to inferring either
> On May 13, 2019, at 10:17 AM, Brian Dickson
> wrote:
>
> The original RFC 8145 gives the ability to gather trust anchor signal data.
>
> There are limitations related to inferring either reasons for behavior
> observed on the aggregate volumes, or identifying originating
>
Hi,
I still would like to continue with this and I still think it’s a no brainer
and I know this is super uninteresting
to anyone but the DNS software vendors.
But I do have a question for the WG - should we add a text that would allow the
“Expert Review” to formally
DEPRECATE (as defined in
The original RFC 8145 gives the ability to gather trust anchor signal data.
There are limitations related to inferring either reasons for behavior
observed on the aggregate volumes, or identifying originating
resolvers/forwarders versus upstream resolvers/forwarders (which could
include both NAT
Also, I would argue that the ability to run ANAME at your own infrastructure
might drive less people to the “managed DNS” land or allow them to migrate
away without a significant loss of functionality.
One way or another, ANAME-like behaviour became defacto industry standard
and we need to have a
