Evan Hunt wrote:
> (Incidentally, I'm working on a somewhat more ambitious ANAME draft with
> Peter van Dijk and Anthony Eden, who has kindly agreed to merge his efforts
> with ours. I expect to post it in a few days, stay tuned.)
Does the more ambitious version use the NSEC rdata
On 31 Mar 2017, at 17:54, Tim Wicinski wrote:
On 3/31/17 10:33 AM, John Levine wrote:
Now we're back to the same issue I raised with BULK. Everyone now
has
to carefully check what features are supported by all of their
secondary servers, as opposed to now where I don't even know or care
I've uplaoded the draft version of the minutes from the last DNSOP
meeting. Please take a look and make sure you're quoted as you expected
to be
thanks
tim
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-98-dnsop/
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
This gets you a single lookup with no followup queries required
once the recursive server supports this. If the client is still
talking to a legacy server it would still need to do followup queries
for missing records.
I like this but there's an obvious question: if the recursive server has
> From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Dickson
>
> > Apologies but I did not hear the full question regarding BULK RR’s
> > and the perl like back-references. If you could please repeat
> > the question we would be happy to comment.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
>
>
In article <9232f4f4-772f-48aa-80fb-c990662af...@powerdns.com> you write:
>On 31 Mar 2017, at 1:08, John Levine wrote:
>
>>> If you sign offline, what happens when the A records change?
>>
>> You Lose(tm). For that matter, you lose even when the A records don't
>> change since the signer only
On 3/31/17 10:33 AM, John Levine wrote:
Now we're back to the same issue I raised with BULK. Everyone now has
to carefully check what features are supported by all of their
secondary servers, as opposed to now where I don't even know or care
what software they use. Some of us hoped we got
Hello Tony,
On 31 Mar 2017, at 12:10, Tony Finch wrote:
Evan Hunt wrote:
(Incidentally, I'm working on a somewhat more ambitious ANAME draft
with
Peter van Dijk and Anthony Eden, who has kindly agreed to merge his
efforts
with ours. I expect to post it in a few days, stay
On 28 Mar 2017, at 21:56, Barry Raveendran Greene wrote:
On Mar 28, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Peter van Dijk
wrote:
Please note that neither draft handles the use case of also passing
the port number, which in a world of growing CGN deployment, may soon
prove quite
On 31 Mar 2017, at 16:09, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On 28 Mar 2017, at 23:27, Dave Lawrence wrote:
Peter van Dijk writes:
Please note that neither draft handles the use case of also passing
the
port number, which in a world of growing CGN deployment, may soon
prove
quite important.
I agree
On 31 Mar 2017, at 1:08, John Levine wrote:
If you sign offline, what happens when the A records change?
You Lose(tm). For that matter, you lose even when the A records don't
change since the signer only sees the ANAME, not the A or .
There are PowerDNS ALIAS deployments that signs
On 28 Mar 2017, at 23:27, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> Peter van Dijk writes:
>> Please note that neither draft handles the use case of also passing the
>> port number, which in a world of growing CGN deployment, may soon prove
>> quite important.
>
> I agree that neither handles it explicitly. Ray's
The long term way to fix this is for DNS servers to *always* fill
in the additional section for select RR types (e.g. SRV) including
chasing down missing additional records and setting TC=1 if those
additional records will not fit for recursive queries. TC=1 is
already required when glue records
13 matches
Mail list logo