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

Reply via email to