El 13 ag 2017, a les 13:19, Tony Finch va escriure:
> RFC 6761 requires recursive servers to return positive 127.0.0.1 and ::1
> responses, not NXDOMAIN. I can't see an explanation in the draft for the
> change to NXDOMAIN.
The reason to return NXDOMAIN is that it causes stub
> On 12 Aug 2017, at 22:35, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> That is, the title of the document should be "DNS servers should return
> NXDOMAIN for localhost" and the abstract should say why, and then the bit
> about stub resolvers translating "localhost" to a reachable identifier for
On 13 August 2017 at 18:14, Peter van Dijk
wrote:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressive
> use-10#section-10 is not in the published RFC 8198 because 7942 (sadly)
> mandates that this section is removed before publication. I suspect this
>
On 12 Aug 2017, at 18:31, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
8198 doesn't have an implementation status section
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-10#section-10
is not in the published RFC 8198 because 7942 (sadly) mandates that this
section is removed before publication.
> On 13 Aug 2017, at 23:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On 13 Aug 2017, at 10:19, Tony Finch wrote:
>>
>>
>> RFC 6761 requires recursive servers to return positive 127.0.0.1 and ::1
>> responses, not NXDOMAIN. I can't see an explanation in the draft for the
>> change to