At Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:58:46 +0900,
Manabu Sonoda wrote:
> > So I'm wondering: is this something odd you just happen to find in a
> > test environment or something, or is there any practical issue because
> > of that?
> That found product environment...
> Our full resolver was sometimes return the
On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 10:49:50 -0800
神明達哉 wrote:
> I'm not sure whether we should do something about it, though. As you
> pointed out, the configuration is already so broken: there's even no
> delegation from the parent (or ancestor) to the child zone, so I'm not
> sure if we can define any valid b
In message
, =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= writes:
> At Sat, 05 Mar 2016 07:23:46 +1100,
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > There is nothing strange here beyond a missing delegation.
>
> I'm not opposed to this conclusion itself, but:
>
> > > If so, I agree it looks odd, and we might say it's against
At Sat, 05 Mar 2016 07:23:46 +1100,
Mark Andrews wrote:
> There is nothing strange here beyond a missing delegation.
I'm not opposed to this conclusion itself, but:
> > If so, I agree it looks odd, and we might say it's against Section
> > 2.2.1.2 of RFC3658 (if we superficially applied this se
In message
, =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= writes:
> At Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:07:03 +0900,
> Manabu Sonoda wrote:
>
> > I find the the strange response to the DS request.
> > That response answer type is CNAME.
> >
> > This can happen if Child and Parent zone in sa
At Fri, 4 Mar 2016 14:07:03 +0900,
Manabu Sonoda wrote:
> I find the the strange response to the DS request.
> That response answer type is CNAME.
>
> This can happen if Child and Parent zone in same nameserver and
> Parent zone does not have NS recode for Child zone and
> Pare
Hi
I know this is miss-configuration. but sharing.
I find the the strange response to the DS request.
That response answer type is CNAME.
This can happen if Child and Parent zone in same nameserver and
Parent zone does not have NS recode for Child zone and
Parent zone have CNAME recode with the
7 matches
Mail list logo