There are some false equivalences floating around here. I don't
think anyone is suggesting that having provisioning systems or even
DNS servers themselves check for syntax errors in the contents of
complex records like DKIM, SPF, DMARC, or whatever is necessarily a
bad idea. (Whether or
- Original Message -
From: Paul E. Jones pau...@packetizer.com
To: 'Mark Nottingham' m...@mnot.net
Cc: 'Randall Gellens' ra...@qualcomm.com; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:19 AM
Subject: RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash-03.txt (DeprecatingUse of the
X- Prefix in
On 07/Mar/12 09:42, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
It would still be possible to work around the need for a plugin, e.g.
by depending on some wizard web site, as in John's thought experiment.
For the rest of us, the possibility to install a plugin that takes
care of all the nitty-gritty
Gee, by sheer random walk this has wandered back to the original topic,
that provisioning software is the major bar to deploying new RRs.
Most provisioning systems really don't care about most of the data
they are throwing about. It may as well be a opaque blob.
I couldn't disagree more.
FYI MPLS and L2VPN WGs.
Stewart
Original Message
Subject: Last Call: (LDP Typed Wildcard FEC for PWid and Generalized
PWid FEC Elements) to Proposed Standard
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:33:04 -0800
From: The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
To:
Authors
There was on point that I notice that you did not address
from the AD review and so I am picking it up as a LC comment:
In section 10 you say:
This document makes the following update to the PwOperStatusTC
textual convention in RFC5542 [8]:
This update should be recorded in
After looking over this just now - and forgive me as I didn't realize
it contained a reference to 5542 until now - it seems to me that rather that
including this in the RFC as an update to RFC5542, this be added as an errata
entry to 5542. It seems odd to me to note that the single
It cannot be an erratum.
An erratum indicated an error a the time of writing and that is clearly
not the case.
Is the text For example, the PW Preferential Forwarding status state
machine as defined in [RFC (this document)] is in state STANDBY.
actually in the MIB definition itself?
Hi Dan,
| | Section 7.7, Shim6 and IPv6 NAT, the problem could be overcome by
| the
| | Shim6 node knowing its IPv6 address after NPTv6 translation.
| Probably
| not
| | worth adjusting the document, though, as NPTv6 is experimental.
|
| Well, this would not work for HBA, since
Ooops. Thank you for pointing this out Stewart. I will make the update and
publish a new revision.
Mustapha.
-Original Message-
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbry...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:48 PM
To: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-...@tools.ietf.org
Cc:
Mustapha,
You might want to wait for any other LC comments before updating.
Thanks,
Andy
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
mustapha.aissa...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
Ooops. Thank you for pointing this out Stewart. I will make the update and
publish a new
makes sense Andy.
Thanks,
Mustapha.
From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:ama...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 12:53 PM
To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
Cc: stbry...@cisco.com; draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-...@tools.ietf.org;
p...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
On 07/Mar/12 09:42, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
It would still be possible to work around the need for a plugin, e.g.
by depending on some wizard web site, as in John's thought experiment.
For the rest of us, the possibility to install a plugin that takes
care of all the
In message alpine.bsf.2.00.1203070926260.60...@joyce.lan, John R. Levine wr
ites:
Gee, by sheer random walk this has wandered back to the original topic,
that provisioning software is the major bar to deploying new RRs.
Most provisioning systems really don't care about most of the data
Most provisioning systems really don't care about most of the data
they are throwing about. It may as well be a opaque blob. ...
Assuming you're not talking about editing zone files with vi, can you give
some specific examples of what you're talking about?
Most provisioning systems ...
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:49:22AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
Take SPF as a example. If providers had supported UNKNOWN format
then the SPF generation tools would have done UNKNOWN + SPF type
specific rather than TXT + SPF.
My father used to have a saying: If Johnny hadn't died, they
In message alpine.bsf.2.00.1203071719100.78...@joyce.lan, John R. Levine wr
ites:
Most provisioning systems really don't care about most of the data
they are throwing about. It may as well be a opaque blob. ...
Assuming you're not talking about editing zone files with vi, can you give
Most provisioning systems ...
I well know they don't because they are still stuck in 1980's think
mode. ...
Hi. Could you give some concrete examples of DNS provisioning systems
that let you enter arbitrary RRs? I've never seen one in the wild, other
than the one I wrote for myself.
Mark Andrews wrote:
Stop asking for type support and ask for UNKNOWN record support
from your provider. UNKNOWN record support will handle type
and anything new that will come along.
+1
By supporting UNKNOWN record format, providers get to know which
types are actually being used
Mark Andrews wrote:
Martin Rex writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
John Levine writes:
In case it wasn't clear, this is an authoritative server.
If this is about permitted RCODEs here
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035#section-4.1.1
then an RCODE of 4 in the response
In message 20120307223904.gw79...@mail.yitter.info, Andrew Sullivan writes:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 08:49:22AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
Take SPF as a example. If providers had supported UNKNOWN format
then the SPF generation tools would have done UNKNOWN + SPF type
specific rather
In message 201203072304.q27n4gdx000...@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp, Martin Rex writes
:
Mark Andrews wrote:
Martin Rex writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
John Levine writes:
In case it wasn't clear, this is an authoritative server.
If this is about permitted RCODEs here
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Andrews
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:28 PM
To: m...@sap.com
Cc: jo...@iecc.com; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: provisioning software, was DNS RRTYPEs, the difficulty with
Maybe you
In message 9452079d1a51524aa5749ad23e00392807e...@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.c
om, Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mar
k Andrews
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:28 PM
To: m...@sap.com
Cc:
Mark Andrews wrote:
Randy claimed that presentation formats were not standardised. They
are. Randy and others claimed that the presentation formats were
owned by BIND and they are not.
I never claimed that STD 13 was the be all and end all w.r.t. DNS.
STD 13 didn't follow the normal
The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to
Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document:
- 'LDP Typed Wildcard FEC for PWid and Generalized PWid FEC Elements'
draft-ietf-pwe3-pw-typed-wc-fec-03.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the
The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to
Edge WG (pwe3) to consider the following document:
- 'Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit'
draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification'
(draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt) as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the DNS Extensions Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Jari Arkko.
A URL of this
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6527
Title: Definitions of Managed Objects for
Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol Version 3
(VRRPv3)
Author: K. Tata
Status:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6536
Title: Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access
Control Model
Author: A. Bierman, M. Bjorklund
Status: Standards Track
Stream:
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6539
Title: IBAKE: Identity-Based Authenticated Key Exchange
Author: V. Cakulev, G. Sundaram, I. Broustis
Status: Informational
Stream: Independent
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6542
Title: Kerberos Version 5 Generic Security
Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API)
Channel
Binding Hash Agility
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 6558
Title: Sieve Extension for Converting Messages
before Delivery
Author: A. Melnikov, B. Leiba,
K. Li
Status: Standards
33 matches
Mail list logo
