
	Where results make sense

Topic: RFC 2181

Related Topics

MATLAB

Swami Shyam

John Poindexter

Puffy

Scorefile

Shinsengumi

Kiho

Sarnath

Yancheng

Hinton

SHA

Palos Heights, Illinois

Xiangtan

Polydorus

Bihor

In the News (Tue 29 Dec 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	RFC2181 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-09-10)
		RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification July 1997 It has been occasionally stated that a received request for a SIG record should be forwarded to an authoritative server, rather than being answered from data in the cache.
		RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification July 1997 Note that in none of these cases should a server for the parent zone, not also being a server for the subzone, set the AA bit in any response for a label at a zone cut.
		RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification July 1997 whatever restrictions are appropriate to their circumstances on the values they use as keys for DNS lookup requests, and on the values returned by the DNS.
	rfc.net /rfc2181.html (5209 words)

	[No title]
		Elz & Bush Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification July 1997 It has been occasionally stated that a received request for a SIG record should be forwarded to an authoritative server, rather than being answered from data in the cache.
		The existence of a zone cut is indicated in the parent zone by the existence of NS records specifying the origin of the child zone.
		Elz & Bush Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification July 1997 Note that in none of these cases should a server for the parent zone, not also being a server for the subzone, set the AA bit in any response for a label at a zone cut.
	www.rfc-editor.org /rfc/rfc2181.txt (5295 words)

	RFC 2181 - Clarifications to the DNS Specification. R. Elz, R. Bush. (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-09-10)
		RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification July 1997 3.
		RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification July 1997 4.2.
		RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification July 1997 5.4.1.
	rfc.sunsite.dk /rfc/rfc2181.html (5324 words)

	RFC 2535 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-09-10)
		RFC 2535 DNS Security Extensions March 1999 4.1.6 Key Tag Field The "key Tag" is a two octet quantity that is used to efficiently select between multiple keys which may be applicable and thus check that a public key about to be used for the computationally expensive effort to check the signature is possibly valid.
		RFC 2535 DNS Security Extensions March 1999 sent as long as at least one is present and, in the case of unsigned delegation point NS or glue A or AAAA RRs a subset of these RRs or simply a modified set could be sent as long as at least one of each type is included.
		RFC 2535 DNS Security Extensions March 1999 Great care should be taken that the consequences have been fully considered before making any local policy adjustments to these rules (other than dispensing with rules 2 and 3 if only root zone keys are staticly configured).
	www.armware.dk /RFC/rfc/rfc2535.html (13774 words)

	RFC 2535 - Domain Name System Security Extensions
		One is for support of dynamic update [RFC 2136] (or future requests which require secure authentication) where an entity is permitted to authenticate/update its records [RFC 2137] and the zone is operating in a mode where the zone key is not on line.
		The SIG RR unforgably authenticates an RRset [RFC 2181] of a particular type, class, and name and binds it to a time interval and the signer's domain name.
		For algorithm 1 (MD5/RSA) as defined in [RFC 2537], it is the next to the bottom two octets of the public key modulus needed to decode the signature field.
	members.tripod.com /rfc_archive/rfc_2535.html (11727 words)

	Mandragor & Apinc - Free Documentation Base
		Elz and Bush Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification July 1997 It has been occasionally stated that a received request for a SIG record should be forwarded to an authoritative server, rather than being answered from data in the cache.
		Elz and Bush Standards Track [Page 9] RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification July 1997 Note that in none of these cases should a server for the parent zone, not also being a server for the subzone, set the AA bit in any response for a label at a zone cut.
		Elz and Bush Standards Track [Page 12] RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification July 1997 Searching for either NS or MX records causes "additional section processing" in which address records associated with the value of the record sought are appended to the answer.
	docs.mandragor.org /files/RFCs/21xx/2181 (5295 words)

	RFC 4343 - Domain Name System (DNS) Case Insensitivity Clarification
		Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 4343 DNS Case Insensitivity Clarification January 2006 One typographic convention for octets that do not correspond to an ASCII printing graphic is to use a back-slash followed by the value of the octet as an unsigned integer represented by exactly three decimal digits.
		Before movable type, the nearest equivalent terms were "majuscule" and "minuscule".) Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 4343 DNS Case Insensitivity Clarification January 2006 One way to implement this rule would be to subtract 0x20 from all octets in the inclusive range from 0x61 to 0x7A before comparing octets.
		This last case Eastlake 3rd Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 4343 DNS Case Insensitivity Clarification January 2006 is unlikely, as optimization of answer length through indirect labels tends to cause only one copy of the name tail ("bar.example" or "BAR.example") to be used for all returned RRs.
	www.packetizer.com /rfc/rfc4343 (2781 words)

	RFC 3696
		RFC 1035 [RFC1035] should be consulted if that mechanism is needed (most common applications, including email and the Web, will generally not permit those escaped strings).
		MAILTO is authoritatively defined in RFC 2368 [RFC2368]; anyone expecting to accept and test multiple addresses or mail header or body formats should consult that document carefully.
		The document was submitted to the RFC Editor on 20 June 2003, returned for revisions on 19 August, and resubmitted on 5 September 2003.
	www.apps.ietf.org /rfc/rfc3696.html (4411 words)

	RFC 2535 - Domain Name System Security Extensions
		[RFC 2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS Specification", RFC 2181, July 1997.
		The SIG RR has been changed by (3a) renaming the "time signed" field to be the "signature inception" field, (3b) clarifying that signature expiration and inception use serial number ring arithmetic, (3c) changing the definition of the key footprint/tag for algorithms other than 1 and adding Appendix C to specify its calculation.
		Eastlake Standards Track [Page 45] RFC 2535 DNS Security Extensions March 1999 Appendix C: Key Tag Calculation The key tag field in the SIG RR is just a means of more efficiently selecting the correct KEY RR to use when there is more than one KEY RR candidate available, for example, in verifying a signature.
	www.packetizer.com /rfc/rfc2535 (13439 words)

	DNS related RFCs
		RFCs are distributed in text format, but where available, a link is provided to HTML versions of these documents.
		Demotes RFC 2673 and RFC 2874 to Experimental status, as A6 records and binary labels for IPv6 addresses are no longer regarded as important.
		RFC 1637 (Experimental) obsoletes RFC 1348; obsoleted by RFC 1706
	www.dns.net /dnsrd/rfc (4288 words)

	The Internet Report
		This RFC is a commentary on the difficulty of deciding upon an acceptably distinctive hostname for one's computer, a problem which grows in direct proportion to the logarithmically increasing size of the Internet.
		Although HTML [RFC 1866] was designed within the context of MIME, more than the specification of HTML as defined in RFC 1866 is needed for two electronic mail user agents to be able to interoperate usingHTML as a document format.
		RFC 3007, RFC 4035, RFC 4033, RFC 4034
	ietfreport.isoc.org /rfc2100-2199.html (6546 words)

	Listing policy for bogusmx.rfc-ignorant.org zone (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-09-10)
		RFC 3330, or if the domain contains an MX RR that points to an IP address, in violation of RFC 1035 or if the domain has MX RRs which point to hostnames which themselves do not have an associated A record (including MXs which return an NXDOMAIN, or which are CNAMEs)
		Also included is any host which resolves to the world broadcast (255.255.255.255) address, since that IP address is obviously invalid.
		Section 10.3 of RFC 2181 points out that pointing an MX RR at a hostname which is actually a CNAME RR is invalid, and such hosts are also listed.
	www.rfc-ignorant.org /policy-bogusmx.php (224 words)

	RFC 2929 (rfc2929)
		See [RFC 1034, 1035, 2136, 2181, 2535] familiarity with which is assumed.
		Best Current Practice [Page 2] RFC 2929 DNS IANA Considerations September 2000 The QR bit indicates whether the header is for a query or a response.
		Best Current Practice [Page 5] RFC 2929 DNS IANA Considerations September 2000 RDATA is a variable length string of octets that constitutes the resource.
	www.cse.ohio-state.edu /cgi-bin/rfc/rfc2929.html (2136 words)

	RFC 2181 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-09-10)
		When transmitted, this value shall be encoded in the less significant 31 bits of the 32 bit TTL field, with the Elz and Bush Standards Track [Page 10]
		References [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
		[RFC1700] Reynolds, J., Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700, October 1994.
	www.dnsreport.com /tools/rfc.ch?detail=2181 (5316 words)

	DNS related RFCs
		Opposes RFC 3363, saying that A6 records are superior.
		RFC 2535 (Proposed Standard) obsoletes RFC 2065; updates RFC 2181, RFC 1035 and RFC 1034
		RFC 1035 (Standard: STD 13) updated by RFCs 1101, 1122, 1183, 1706, 1876, 1982, 1995, 1996, 2052, 2136, 2137, 2181, 2308 and 2535; obsoletes RFCs 882, 883 and 973
	www.zoneedit.com /doc/rfc (2618 words)

	Roxen Community: RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification (Standards Track)
		Roxen Community: RFC 2181 Clarifications to the DNS Specification (Standards Track)
		This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
		Randy Bush RGnet, Inc. 5147 Crystal Springs Drive NE Bainbridge Island, Washington, 98110 United States.
	community.roxen.com /developers/idocs/rfc/rfc2181.html (5004 words)

	Electronic Mail Related RFC Documents
		This document lists RFC documents that affect electronic mail applications.
		Last RFC at the time of update was RFC-2498.
		RFC 1225 Post Office Protocol: Version 3 RFC 1082 Post Office Protocol: Version 3: Extended service offerings RFC 977 Network News Transfer Protocol
	www.tac.nyc.ny.us /mail/rfc-index.html (857 words)

	What RFC's does DHCP Services support?
		What RFC's does the DHCP Services module support?
		DHCP Option to Disable Stateless Auto-Configuration of IPv4 Clients (RFC 2563)
		DNS Extensions to support IP version 6 (RFC 1886)
	www.incognito.com /support/WebHelp/whatrfcsdoesipcommanders.html (124 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)