Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> Yup - it could be used to instruct a (non-validating) resolver to
> please go off and start fetching this list of other records... but,
> seeing as everyone already validates (right?!) we don't suggest this.
:-D
> > However I don't know how an
IETF Secretariat wrote:
> The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state
> Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
>
> The document is available at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses/
Hi,
I've read
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Warren Kumari wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm... I think that this sounds reasonable, possibly with a minor tweak.
>> Initially the EXTRA RR was never intended to be something that could
>> be queried - the EXTRA (nee
Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> Hmmm... I think that this sounds reasonable, possibly with a
> minor tweak.
> Initially the EXTRA RR was never intended to be something that could
> be queried - the EXTRA (nee ADDitional) record only existed to allow
> copying from the master to the
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> 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
> 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
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
From: fujiwara
Date: 2016-07-06 17:09
To: dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed
draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"
>* My idea
> I prefer multiple query sections (with some restrictions)
> and merged answers.
In message
, Warren Kumari writes:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:35 PM, John Heidemann wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 12:21:58 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> >>Warren Kumari writes:
> >>
> >>> The
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:35 PM, John Heidemann wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 12:21:58 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>Warren Kumari writes:
>>
>>> The multiple query example, and multiple TYPEs are interesting, but
>>> solves a different problem
>>
>>Exactly. IMHO,
On Wed, 06 Jul 2016 12:21:58 -0700, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>Warren Kumari writes:
>
>> The multiple query example, and multiple TYPEs are interesting, but
>> solves a different problem
>
>Exactly. IMHO, we really need both solutions:
>
>1) the ability to ask multiple questions
fujiw...@jprs.co.jp writes:
> Using unstructured data (TXT format) is not good.
Thanks for the feedback on that. I have wondered heavily on that
topic. It was originally written as a text format, and we have a lot of
other cases where such text parsing exists (SPF being an example). As
the
Warren Kumari writes:
> The multiple query example, and multiple TYPEs are interesting, but
> solves a different problem
Exactly. IMHO, we really need both solutions:
1) the ability to ask multiple questions
2) the ability for a server to respond with authoritative answers
On 6 Jul 2016, at 3:54, Ray Bellis wrote:
On 06/07/2016 10:09, fujiw...@jprs.co.jp wrote:
* 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
On 06/07/2016 10:09, fujiw...@jprs.co.jp wrote:
> We need summaries of previous discussions,
> and need to consider why many idea stopped.
>
> * For the draft,
>
> Using unstructured data (TXT format) is not good.
>
> I agree query name restriction (Additional records MUST be leaf
>
> From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org>
> The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state
> Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
>
> The document is available at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:51 AM, IETF Secretariat <
ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state
> Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
>
> The document is available at
> https://datatr
The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses/
___
DNSOP mailing list
18 matches
Mail list logo