IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Agenda and Slides upload

Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Wed, 04 November 2015 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFD71B3433 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:53:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EWaAsEUYOgzJ for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2CB21B3430 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:53:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.54]:50119) by ppsw-50.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.158]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:fanf2) id 1Zu5zQ-0000Ry-ry (Exim 4.86_36-e07b163) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 04 Nov 2015 21:53:08 +0000
Received: from fanf2 by hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local id 1Zu5zQ-0000lI-LB (Exim 4.72) (return-path <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 04 Nov 2015 21:53:08 +0000
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 21:53:08 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
X-X-Sender: fanf2@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <563A69D0.7090208@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1511042144130.28816@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <563A69D0.7090208@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LSU 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: Tony Finch <fanf2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/EQLYX5_3l1kqJgclQGMkPg2ve3Q>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Agenda and Slides upload
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 21:53:12 -0000

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     draft-spacek-dnsop-update-clarif, Spacek

Note that my 2317bis draft has a slightly different take on UPDATE vs
classless reverse DNS. The UPDATE section of my draft is entirely due to
Petr's draft, so I'm very grateful to him for pointing out the problem.
I'm interested in opinions about

- should this be a separate draft or is it sensible to put it in rfc2317bis?

- is the indirection problem specific to classless reverse DNS (which is
  the approach I took) or does it apply everywhere (which is what
  Petr Spacek's draft says)?

- is my detailed suggested UPDATE behaviour sensible?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fanf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00#section-9

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
Trafalgar: Westerly or southwesterly 5 or 6, decreasing 4, then increasing 5
to 7 in northwest. Moderate or rough. Thundery showers. Good, occasionally
poor.

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status