On Nov 13, 2014, at 7:44 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I'd rather not see the RIPE NCC further endorse the DLV technology and
>> service by continuing to submit key material there.
>
> thank you
>
>> DLV was meant as a temporary deployment aid and might have been a good
>> idea at its time.
>
> or n
Peter,
On Nov 13, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Peter Koch wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:28:32AM -1000, David Conrad wrote:
>
>> On Nov 13, 2014, at 8:05 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> The NCC should simply release ripe.int, as the historical reasons for
>>> it no long
Romeo,
On Nov 17, 2014, at 7:49 AM, Romeo Zwart wrote:
> 2/ The RIPE NCC has been publishing this key material out of band for
> historical reasons. If there is a consensus in the WG that this is no
> longer needed, or even undesirable, we are happy to phase out the use of
> the DLV.
Yay!
> 3/
Nick,
On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 18/11/2014 11:16, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>> Let's have RIPE.INT removed.
> tbh, I see no reason to remove ripe.int.
I see no reason to keep it.
> If ICANN has concerns about the delegation, then they should raise them
> formally with
Lutz,
On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:38 PM, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>> If ICANN has concerns about the delegation, then they should raise them
>> formally with the RIPE NCC.
> I second that.
As mentioned previously, AFAIK, ICANN doesn't have any concerns with ripe.int
-- I doubt anyone who isn't on thi
[Apologies for any formatting weirdness -- having MUA issues]
Hi Anne-Marie,
> who do you expect to be able to participate in the design team ready to serve
> and during what timeframe in 2015?
People with DNSSEC experience, particularly in areas related to rolling keys,
who see it in their in
Stephane,
On Dec 17, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Here, we are talking of something far more operational, with
> possible direct consequences to one of the crucial components of DNS
> security.
No. What we're talking about is coming up with the plan (one might even say
'protoc
Anne-Marie,
Please allow me to correct you on one particular item:
On Dec 19, 2014, at 4:28 AM, Anne-Marie Eklund-Löwinder
wrote:
> The biggest benefits will nevertheless be ICANN's, getting this important
> work done without having to spend money on designing one of the most
> important fun
> On Jan 9, 2016, at 6:56 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
> Randy Bush writes:
>
>>> today I noticed, that my DNS servers are getting a noticable amount of
>>> DNS queries for my IPv4 reverse zone, asking for type A or .
>>
>> how strange, as a reverse zone should pretty much be all PTRs
>
> Not
Jim,
> > They seem to have made the announcement about 12 hours or so ago, so why
> > not give them a bit of time? (
> Surely 12 hours is more than enough?
As far as I am aware, nothing is on fire. Given the lack of time criticality, I
would have thought it’d be more important to the technical
Moritz,
On Dec 15, 2021, at 11:59 PM, Moritz Müller via dns-wg wrote:
>> offering European citizens and private and public organizations the capacity
>> to access the web with a high-quality and free service
> I was wondering: Why does the EC believe that the resolvers users currently
> rely on
Andrew,
On Dec 20, 2021, at 3:28 AM, Andrew Campling
wrote:
> The use of the pejorative term "lying" resolver is unhelpful in this context.
> It is important to acknowledge that the vast majority of Internet users are
> not experts; indeed most are unaware of either the purpose or the existen
Randy,
On Jan 12, 2022, at 1:27 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> how does this avoid creating a nice well-defined target for: IP
> shutdowns, censorship, saving children from abuse, terrorism, …?
I believe that’s covered in section 12 of the solicitation
(https://hadea.ec.europa.eu/calls-proposals/equ
13 matches
Mail list logo
