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

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 >

[DNSOP] Anyone else want to join the DNS group at the IETF 96 Hackathon?

DNSOP members, FYI, we've got 20+ people gathering at the IETF 96 Hackathon on Saturday and Sunday, July 16-17, in Berlin to work on various "DNS / DNSSEC / DPRIVE / DANE" projects. Anyone else who is around on the weekend is welcome to join us. There are some projects that could use some

[DNSOP] Love for draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes (was The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wkumari-dnsop-multiple-responses in state "Candidate for WG Adoption")

Paul, At 2016-07-06 07:34:03 -0700 "Paul Hoffman" wrote: > 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. >

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

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"

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

[DNSOP] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-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.)

[DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-session-signal-00.txt

I've just submitted this draft, which resulted from discussions in Buenos Aires related to issues with using EDNS for persistent signalling (c.f. RFC 7828), and also from an overlap with draft-ietf-dnssd-push and its (mis-)use of the edns-tcp-keepalive option. The intention here is to split out

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-session-signal-00.txt

Hm, you seem to have left out a definition of what a "session" is. Do you mean a TCP connection? Are you referring to something that's already defined in a document that I have, lamentably, not read? (In which case, a reference would be helpful). On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Ray Bellis

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-session-signal-00.txt

On 06/07/2016 23:28, Ted Lemon wrote: > Hm, you seem to have left out a definition of what a "session" is. Do > you mean a TCP connection? Are you referring to something that's > already defined in a document that I have, lamentably, not read? (In > which case, a reference would be helpful).

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

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"

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

[DNSOP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-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.)

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

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] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bellis-dnsop-session-signal-00.txt

I suspected as much, but it would be good to come up with some language that says what you intend and gives a TCP connection as an example. I'm not entirely convinced that DNS cookie is a bad use case for this... :) On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Ray Bellis wrote: > On

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

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. > multiple query

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

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"

> From: 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/