On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 03:33:23PM -0500,
Warren Kumari wrote
a message of 388 lines which said:
> but how about:
> "The majority of these extended error codes are primarily useful for
> resolvers, to return to stub resolvers or to downstream
> resolvers. Authoritative servers may also use
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 02:58:38PM +0100,
Alexander Mayrhofer wrote
a message of 59 lines which said:
> Feedback highly appreciated,
I think that it is an important work because it brings the power of
the DNS to many other identifier systems. So, I support it.
May be more examples could
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 09:34:16AM +,
Jim Reid wrote
a message of 19 lines which said:
> Why? From the client's perspective, there's no effective difference
> between these.
In the first case, you can talk with someone which you have some
relationship with (the ISP, typically).
> Their
Paul Vixie wrote:
> unbound has pioneered a bit of this by automatically refetching data that's
> near its expiration point.
BIND also does this, it's on by default.
I'm not a fan of RFC 7706 because I think it's redundant wrt prefetch
(HAMMER), NXDOMAIN synthesis, and (to a much smaller
> On 15 Feb 2019, at 09:02, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> I really think it is important to make the difference between:
>
> * I blocked your request because that's _my_ policy
> * I blocked your request because I'm compelled to do so, don't
> complain, it would be useless.
Why? From the
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 01:57:14PM -0800,
Paul Vixie wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
> the fact that i have to hotwire my RDNS cache with local zone glue
> in order to reach my own servers when my comcast circuit is down or
> i can't currently reach the .SU authorities to learn where
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 08:51:25PM +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
a message of 101 lines which said:
> Otherwise, I suggest to add an error code:
Ooops, I forgot one:
SERVFAIL Extended DNS Error Code 8 - No reachable authority
The resolver could not reach any of the authoritative
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:59 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer
wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 01:57:14PM -0800,
> Paul Vixie wrote
> a message of 42 lines which said:
>
> > the fact that i have to hotwire my RDNS cache with local zone glue
> > in order to reach my own servers when my comcast circuit
Tony Finch wrote on 2019-02-15 01:47:
...
We have local stealth secondary copies of our zones on our recursive
servers which helps to some extent, except when downstream validators want
to get the chain of trust. But serve-stale should help.
prefetching or leasing or rrset subscription is
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:49 AM Arnt Gulbrandsen
wrote:
> On Thursday 14 February 2019 22:41:56 CET, Bob Harold wrote:
> > The draft assumes typical TTL is a week, but what I see in the root zone
> is:
> ...
>
> I hoped noone would notice. It's good rather than bad, overall, but it
> complicates
On 2/15/19 9:46 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> This technically also allows one to separate the two DNS zones more
> clearly (and could even be managed by a different group)
>
> I'm really on the fence for this document. On the one hand, it is good
> to have a memorable decentralized identifier, but
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 09:29:29AM -0500,
Bob Harold wrote
a message of 73 lines which said:
> I think in most solutions, if the name servers for "
> malware-c-and-c-as-a-service.com" and "com" are both unreachable,
> the domain should continue to resolve. But if "com" is reachable,
> and
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 8:24 AM Shane Kerr
wrote:
> Klaus,
>
> On 14/02/2019 14.00, Klaus Malorny wrote:
> > On 14.02.19 11:03, Shane Kerr wrote:
> >
> >> Is there a write-up on this?
> >>
> >> Thinking about it naively, a demultiplexer really only needs to say
> >> "is there a non-ASCII
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
Subject: Re: [Din] Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-mayrhofer-did-dns-01.txt
I think this document should be Experimental and not Standards Track?
The reference to 7929 should be normative, not informative, since
you actually need to
14 matches
Mail list logo
