Re: [DNSOP] Please review in terminology-bis: Global DNS and Private DNS

Hi, On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 02:52:11PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > I think that it would be better to remove "global DNS". It is not a > technical definition and it assumes things like the mythical "names > operational community". I don't believe the "names operational community" is

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:22 AM william manning wrote: > your wrote,: "​In the real world, the user will not be expected to figure > this out [...] -- a bit of JS on www.example.com will do the 3 fetches > and report "You'll be just fine", "You will have issues, call

Re: [DNSOP] Clarifying referrals (#35)

Hi all, Some of you will perhaps recall that previous efforts at text on referrals were unsuccessful. I've had another go. I _think_ it addresses all the comments so far, without actually causing the terminology draft to drift into prescribing protocol. It is unfortunately quite a bit longer,

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

On 15 Jan 2018, at 07:22, KenM wrote: > I think its a bit sad that for the DNS to work, one now needs to run http[s] > and JS. So much for stand alone protocols. Now if you could show how this > works without JS or HTTP, then we might be getting somewhere. We

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

Hi Warren, all, On 15-01-18 02:51, Warren Kumari wrote: > The (new) rules: > A: If the qname starts with _is-ta, and the included keyid is *NOT* in > the trust store, the resolver changes the answer to a SERVFAIL > (otherwise things proceed normally). > B: If the qname starts with _not-ta and the

Re: [DNSOP] A conversational description of sentinel.

your wrote,: "​In the real world, the user will not be expected to figure this out [...] -- a bit of JS on www.example.com will do the 3 fetches and report "You'll be just fine", "You will have issues, call your ISP and get them to install the new key" or "Sorry, cannot tell.​ Call your ISP and