Room change - we're now in Square Dorchester (the bigger room).
Cheers,
> On 10 Jul 2018, at 10:25 pm, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> Sure, with the understanding that we'll probably start a few minutes after
> that, given the session end at 16:20 (I'm chairing then, it usually takes a
> little
> On 12 Jul 2018, at 10:48 am, Nico Williams wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 08:51:43AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 1) is addressed by defining a new type(s) rather than using prefixes.
>>>
>>> While that is correct, and truly, it is trivial to implement, it is not
>>> trivial to
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 08:51:43AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >>> 1) is addressed by defining a new type(s) rather than using prefixes.
> >
> > While that is correct, and truly, it is trivial to implement, it is not
> > trivial to deploy: too many DNS hosting providers would have to update
> >
> On 12 Jul 2018, at 7:24 am, Nico Williams wrote:
>
>>> On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:30 am, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>>
> On 11 Jul 2018, at 3:55 am, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> *cups hand to ear*
>
> Was that the sound of a distant desire to specify use of SRV for
> HTTP?
>>>
>>>
> > On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:30 am, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > > > On 11 Jul 2018, at 3:55 am, Joe Abley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > *cups hand to ear*
> > > >
> > > > Was that the sound of a distant desire to specify use of SRV for
> > > > HTTP?
> >
> > I think there are three main objections.
> >
On 11 Jul 2018, at 8:21, Mark Andrews wrote:
> As for lib curl, there is not a RFC that says to lookup SRV records for HTTP
> or HTTPS.
Agree, and I have wanted it to be part of HTTP/2, or at least resolve this
mess, but it did not happen.
This is my recurring discussion with Daniel when we
> On Jul 10, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 11 Jul 2018, at 3:55 am, Joe Abley wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 18:02, Adam Roach wrote:
>>
>>> In large part because DNS provides "a richer scheme that accommodates
>>> address families and multiple addresses with
> On 11 Jul 2018, at 3:53 pm, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
> On 11 Jul 2018, at 3:30, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>> I think there are three main objections.
>>
>> 1) Wildcards don’t work with prefixes.
>> 2) Additional data isn’t always returned it may require multiple round trips.
>> 3) Additional
On 11 Jul 2018, at 5:16, John R Levine wrote:
> It's always been my impression that the http crowd believe that the
> overhead of a two DNS lookups is too slow, for some meaning of too slow.
They rather stay in the space they know, HTTP resolution, and do multiple HTTP
requests instead of
On 11 Jul 2018, at 3:30, Mark Andrews wrote:
> I think there are three main objections.
>
> 1) Wildcards don’t work with prefixes.
> 2) Additional data isn’t always returned it may require multiple round trips.
> 3) Additional data processing doesn’t support negative responses.
4) Various
> On 11 Jul 2018, at 1:16 pm, John R Levine wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:08:37PM -0400, John Levine wrote:
>>> There's over 6000 service names defined for SRV. That's a lot of rrtypes.
>>
>> But HTTP/HTTPS is the one we have by far the most problems with.
>
> True, and there have
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:08:37PM -0400, John Levine wrote:
There's over 6000 service names defined for SRV. That's a lot of rrtypes.
But HTTP/HTTPS is the one we have by far the most problems with.
True, and there have been some proposals for DNS records to return http
parameters.
It's
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:08:37PM -0400, John Levine wrote:
> There's over 6000 service names defined for SRV. That's a lot of rrtypes.
But HTTP/HTTPS is the one we have by far the most problems with.
--
Evan Hunt -- e...@isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
In article <82099ded-ccb6-4cdc-bfe6-97b1ab3eb...@isc.org> you write:
>1) Wildcards don’t work with prefixes.
>1) is addressed by defining a new type(s) rather than using prefixes.
There's over 6000 service names defined for SRV. That's a lot of rrtypes.
R's,
John
Sure, with the understanding that we'll probably start a few minutes after
that, given the session end at 16:20 (I'm chairing then, it usually takes a
little while to get out).
I've reserved Barre Oblique from 18:30 until 19:30 on Tuesday.
Cheers,
> On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:52 am, Dave Lawrence
> On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:51 am, Dave Lawrence wrote:
>
> Mark Nottingham writes:
>> I'll start collecting. How about Tuesday, say 6:45-7:45pm?
>
> Last session ends at 6:20 and social starts at 7, not sure how late
> the last bus (if any?) will be leaving the hotel.
It’s a 9 minute walk (4
Dave Lawrence writes:
> Mark Nottingham writes:
> > I'll start collecting. How about Tuesday, say 6:45-7:45pm?
>
> Last session ends at 6:20 and social starts at 7, not sure how late
> the last bus (if any?) will be leaving the hotel.
Nevermind, walking distance to social, under 1km. Maybe
Mark Nottingham writes:
> I'll start collecting. How about Tuesday, say 6:45-7:45pm?
Last session ends at 6:20 and social starts at 7, not sure how late
the last bus (if any?) will be leaving the hotel.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
Fine by me.
> On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:32 am, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> I didn't find those, but I found many others.
>
> I'll start collecting. How about Tuesday, say 6:45-7:45pm?
>
>
>
>> On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:30 am, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:22 am, Mark
I didn't find those, but I found many others.
I'll start collecting. How about Tuesday, say 6:45-7:45pm?
> On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:30 am, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:22 am, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 11 Jul 2018, at 3:55 am, Joe Abley wrote:
>>>
>>>
> On 11 Jul 2018, at 11:22 am, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 11 Jul 2018, at 3:55 am, Joe Abley wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 18:02, Adam Roach wrote:
>>
>>> In large part because DNS provides "a richer scheme that accommodates
>>> address families and multiple addresses with
21 matches
Mail list logo
