On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 9:00 AM Giovane C. M. Moura <giovane.moura= 40sidn...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > >> Do you plan to maintain the parent/child disjoint NS > >> domain (marigliano.xyz <http://marigliano.xyz>) going forward? And what > >> about the test > >> domains for other types of misconfigurations? > > > > Great idea. Let me look into this, will get back to with that. > > > Done. Check http://superdns.nl :) > > Marco and I (mostly Marco, I've got say) set up this website and all the > delegations/records that replicates the setup of the paper. > Thanks Giovane (and Marco)! Looks pretty good at first glance. A few tangential questions though: The HTTPS site goes to a different and mostly empty page - and Chrome doesn't like the certificate because it has a wildcard Subject CN. Are you planning to fix that? I know DNSSEC is likely not the focus of your experiment, but the zones do seem to be signed - but with algorithm 16 (Ed448), which not a lot of resolvers or debugging tools support yet. Any reason you didn't choose a more widely supported algorithm? We did under a diff domain for sake of simplicity for us and differently > from the paper, we create 4 delegations, each one corresponding to one > of the scenarios (in the paper we change the NS configurations in > between experiments, we want a static setup here for folks to test). > > Hope it helps and if you need any help, let me know. > > /giovane > > ps: Raffaele, the first author of our paper, will present the study on > RIPE80 on Tuesday's plenary: > https://ripe80.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/plenary/#tue4 , in case > you want to check it out > Thanks for the pointer. I missed it, but will try to view the recording soon. Shumon.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
