Thanks Olaf!
Patrik
On 8 jul 2010, at 15.04, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>
> On Mar 24, 2010, at 11:19 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
>> General comment:
>>
>> The document is not clear enough regarding the roles of the registrant, dns
>> operator, registrar and registry -- where the dns operator
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:39:33AM +0200, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>
> I observe though that 4641 is mainly written from the perspective of a
> 'zone-owner' and that I am not quite sure where to give specific advice to
> administrators of recursive nameservers.
>
> So before text is drafted there is
On Mar 24, 2010, at 11:19 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> General comment:
>
> The document is not clear enough regarding the roles of the registrant, dns
> operator, registrar and registry -- where the dns operator is in the document
> implied to be the one that hold the private keys. Further,
You probably noticed I swapped in the document and tackling issues one-by-one.
On Mar 20, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
> On Mar 20 2010, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010, Olaf Kolkman wrote:
>>
>>> - http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/svn/rfc4641bis/trunk/open-issues/NSEC-NSEC3
>>
On Jun 16, 2010, at 5:25 PM, John Dickinson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the very late reply to this issue.
>
> http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/svn/rfc4641bis/trunk/open-issues/trust_anchor_configuration
>
> Paul asked for proper use of 5011 to be added to 4641bis. I agree, In fact
> could we go furth
On Jun 24, 2010, at 11:59 AM, George Barwood wrote:
> It could also note that validators SHOULD NOT check the RRSIG for a DNSKEY
> RRset
> where all the keys are validated by DS records.
This document (4641-bis) is supposed to give operational guidance only.
Implementation guidance for valid
