Tim Wicinski has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis-09 as
Internet Standard on behalf of the DNSOP working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7816bis/
___
DNSOP mailing
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 10:09, Hugo Salgado wrote:
>
> Dear DNSOPers, as an operator I tend to have this need to couple
> an answer for a query to an auth server, with the actual "SOA zone
> version" used. So I think it'll be valuable to have an EDNS option
> for it.
I also missed this the first
Seems like a good idea to me. I think the WG should adopt it.
Thanks,
Donald
===
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:09 AM Hugo Salgado wrote:
>
> Dear DNSOPers, as
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 10:03 AM Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Hugo,
>
> On 7 May 2021, at 12:47, Hugo Salgado wrote:
>
> > I'll upload a new version to revive it, and ask for a slot
> > in IETF111 for further discussion!
>
> Just to add my voice to the chorus, I missed this the first time around so
>
Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-ttl-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.)
Please refer to
On 7 May 2021, at 13:39, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Hugo Salgado said:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>>
>> I'll upload a new version to revive it, and ask for a slot
>> in IETF111 for further discussion!
>
> It looks like it's worth considering, but I also wonder how
> relevant it is for DNS
On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 01:39:56PM -0400, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Hugo Salgado said:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >I'll upload a new version to revive it, and ask for a slot
> >in IETF111 for further discussion!
>
> It looks like it's worth considering, but I also wonder how
> relevant it
It appears that Hugo Salgado said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>I'll upload a new version to revive it, and ask for a slot
>in IETF111 for further discussion!
It looks like it's worth considering, but I also wonder how
relevant it is for DNS servers that don't use AXFR/IXFR and SOA
serial numbers to keep
Hi Hugo,
On 7 May 2021, at 12:47, Hugo Salgado wrote:
> I'll upload a new version to revive it, and ask for a slot
> in IETF111 for further discussion!
Just to add my voice to the chorus, I missed this the first time around so
thanks, Mauricio, for mentioning it.
I haven't read the draft in
I'll upload a new version to revive it, and ask for a slot
in IETF111 for further discussion!
Thanks,
Hugo
On 22:02 06/05, Mauricio Vergara Ereche wrote:
> Hi Hugo,
>
> I just want to bring back to life this topic as it solves an issue that
> several operators (like me) seem to be in need to
Benno Overeinder has requested publication of
draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang-02 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the
DNSOP working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang/
On May 7, 2021, at 3:21 AM, Pieter Lexis wrote:
> For PowerDNS, we treat the parsing of SVCParams as a two-step process.
> First we use the normal rfc1035 character decoder on the full SVCParam
> value, after which we apply the value-list parser. The former parses
> 'foo\\,bar' into 'foo\,bar'
I was rethinking my initial concerns, and needed to talk it out with others.
After going back over it with folks smarter than myself, it's more obvious
to me that when the need for escaping inputs will be more of an exception.
My concern is focused not so much on implementers (sorry) but the
On Fri, 7 May 2021 at 11:21, Pieter Lexis wrote:
>
>8
>
> I can see how this might be confusing to those writing zone contents and
> would support a solution that either prohibits comma's in SVCParam list
> values or a different value separator that is not allowed to be embedded
> in values.
Tim
Hi folks,
On 5/6/21 10:16 PM, Dick Franks wrote:
> On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 19:11, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 8:50 AM Dick Franks wrote:
>>> BIND, NSD, and Net::DNS are all able to arrive at implementations of
>>> SVCB using the RFC1035 standard escape conventions, which
Hi Dick, Ben,
I'm the (new) developer at NLNet Labs who implemented SVCB in NSD. While
I have no strong opinion on the double escaping matter, I will pitch in
that NSD currently adheres to the draft (as far as I'm aware).
Best,
Tom
On 2021-05-06 22:16, Dick Franks wrote:
On Thu, 6 May
16 matches
Mail list logo
