Richard and George,
> -Original Message-
> From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Rickard Bellgrim
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:32 PM
> To: George Barwood
> Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Comments on DS Publication draft
>
>
> On 1
On 12 nov 2010, at 06.15, George Barwood wrote:
>> 1. Introduction (3rd paragraph)
>> It is not always the case that the child is the one defining the DS RRset.
>> Some parents wants (for some reason) to create the DS RRset based on their
>> own policy (choice of hash) and based on what DNSKEY
At 1:49 PM -0500 11/11/10, Matt Larson wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> I think these discussions waste a lot of time, and so as a purely
>> tactical measure it strikes me that we could shut down that line of
>> argument by just signing the data.
>
>So we should alter critical
> -Original Message-
> From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> George Barwood
> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 4:15 PM
> To: Rickard Bellgrim; dnsop@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Comments on DS Publication draft
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
Joe Abley wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-liman-tld-names-04.txt
>
> is the latest iteration of an effort started quite some time
> ago to clarify the somewhat vague inference in RFC 1123 and
> create a more precise specification for the syntax of TLD
> labels in the DNS. The authors have n
- Original Message -
From: "Rickard Bellgrim"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:53 PM
Subject: [DNSOP] Comments on DS Publication draft
> Hi
>
> I have some comments on the document draft-barwood-dnsop-ds-publish-01:
>
> 1. Introduction (3rd paragraph)
> It is not always the
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-liman-tld-names-04 Date: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at
10:19:03PM +0100 Quoting Patrik Fältström (pat...@frobbit.se):
> On 11 nov 2010, at 19.42, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> > [sending separately to dnsext and to dnsop, apologies for duplicates]
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-li
On 11 nov 2010, at 19.42, Joe Abley wrote:
> [sending separately to dnsext and to dnsop, apologies for duplicates]
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-liman-tld-names-04.txt
>
> is the latest iteration of an effort started quite some time ago to clarify
> the somewhat vague inference in RFC 1123 a
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 05:03:51AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The last discussion of signing ROOT-SERVERS.NET involved the arguments
> that there's no real value in signing the zone and that there is a
> non-zero cost to doing so.
>
> I agree with both of those arguments, but I w
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I think these discussions waste a lot of time, and so as a purely
> tactical measure it strikes me that we could shut down that line of
> argument by just signing the data.
So we should alter critical infrastructure to stifle argument and, by
extension
Hi all,
[sending separately to dnsext and to dnsop, apologies for duplicates]
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-liman-tld-names-04.txt
is the latest iteration of an effort started quite some time ago to clarify the
somewhat vague inference in RFC 1123 and create a more precise specification
for the
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> I agree with both of those arguments, but I wonder whether it might
> not be a better sales job if we just accepted it maybe ought to be
> signed anyway.
Yes.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
HUMBER THAMES DOVER WIGHT PORTLAND: NORTH
On 11/11/10 6:03 PM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>The last discussion of signing ROOT-SERVERS.NET involved the arguments
>that there's no real value in signing the zone and that there is a
>non-zero cost to doing so.
>
>I agree with both of those arguments, but I wonder whether it might
lowering the noise generated by this discussion by just doing it seems to shift
the balance towards the benefit rather than the cost, so +1
On 11 Nov 2010, at 11:03, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The last discussion of signing ROOT-SERVERS.NET involved the arguments
> that there's no rea
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 05:03:51AM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The last discussion of signing ROOT-SERVERS.NET involved the arguments
> that there's no real value in signing the zone and that there is a
> non-zero cost to doing so.
>
> I agree with both of those arguments, but I w
Hi all,
The last discussion of signing ROOT-SERVERS.NET involved the arguments
that there's no real value in signing the zone and that there is a
non-zero cost to doing so.
I agree with both of those arguments, but I wonder whether it might
not be a better sales job if we just accepted it maybe o
16 matches
Mail list logo
