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

2016-07-12 Thread Tony Finch
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

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

2016-07-11 Thread Robert Edmonds
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

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

2016-07-11 Thread Warren Kumari
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

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

2016-07-11 Thread Tony Finch
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

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

2016-07-11 Thread Warren Kumari
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

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

2016-07-07 Thread fujiwara
> 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] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

2016-07-07 Thread Tony Finch
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

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

2016-07-06 Thread Jiankang Yao
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.

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

2016-07-06 Thread Mark Andrews
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

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

2016-07-06 Thread Warren Kumari
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,

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

2016-07-06 Thread John Heidemann
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

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

2016-07-06 Thread Wes Hardaker
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

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

2016-07-06 Thread Wes Hardaker
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

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

2016-07-06 Thread Paul Hoffman
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

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

2016-07-06 Thread Ray Bellis
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 >

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

2016-07-06 Thread fujiwara
> 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-

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

2016-07-05 Thread Bob Harold
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

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

2016-07-01 Thread IETF Secretariat
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