manning bill <bmann...@isi.edu> writes: > just for the record, the prior art was not referenced in this draft, even > though > Warren was notified when he was working on its predecessor. it would be nice > to actually acknowledge prior art.
It just passed iesg review, and the posted changes this time were wording agreements between myself and the IESG (the WG was cced for the important changes). > http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/saopaulo/presentation-cadr-07dec06.pdf I'll try to get an acknowledgment in the AUTH48 period if that works for you. It looks like the last (major) bullet on your slide 10 indicates that a parent can trust the child information because of dnssec, which is what we're making use of certainly. Your slides seem to hint at a much more active "update request" though, which is not the way the CSYNC record works. -- Wes Hardaker Parsons _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
