IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [IETF] back by popular demand - a DNS calculator

Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> Thu, 21 February 2013 03:46 UTC

Return-Path: <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C2321F8CED for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:46:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d4xLE9V51CbV for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:46:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rambutan.cc.columbia.edu (rambutan.cc.columbia.edu [128.59.29.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3AAB21F8CE3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:46:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.9.0.182] (fireball.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.13.10]) (user=smb2132 mech=PLAIN bits=0) by rambutan.cc.columbia.edu (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r1L3kelv004669 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:46:40 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: [IETF] back by popular demand - a DNS calculator
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <51258A78.5000501@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:46:40 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <881E7F7A-947B-4E30-A5ED-F16180B292A1@cs.columbia.edu>
References: <511D6D18.8000205@isi.edu> <511D6E18.2020205@forfun.net> <511E6E05.9040302@isi.edu> <88B5FFF0-751F-42FE-BE37-32B0DF414DBA@frobbit.se> <4321F24F-FCB5-47E8-8775-F60ED5080211@kumari.net> <51258A78.5000501@gmail.com>
To: "Carlos M. martinez" <carlosm3011@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-No-Spam-Score: Local
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 128.59.29.5
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:46:46 -0000

On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Carlos M. martinez <carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wasn't the 'evil bit' able to hold the value 2 ?
> 
Yes, but we need an RFC for that.  From RFC 3514:

6. IANA Considerations

   This document defines the behavior of security elements for the 0x0
   and 0x1 values of this bit.  Behavior for other values of the bit may
   be defined only by IETF consensus [RFC2434].


		--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status