On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2012, at 17:20, David Conrad wrote:
>
>>> That said, it's good to update and revise those guidelines from time to
>>> time. IMO the value of this document is to describe the general principles
>>> and suggest to others how an "important"
On 14 Feb 2012, at 17:20, David Conrad wrote:
That said, it's good to update and revise those guidelines from
time to time. IMO the value of this document is to describe the
general principles and suggest to others how an "important" DNS
server should be operated. For instance, it can (and
Dear DNS community,
FYI: There is currently a document in GEOPRIV WGLC that makes use of NAPTR
records in the reverse DNS hierarchy, and employs a "tree-walking" algorithm to
locate records at points other than terminal points in the hierarchy (e.g., /32
and /48 instead of /128).
If you have
On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> are you sharing insider knowledge from your time as IANA GM here?
Nope.
> i
> thought that ICANN and VeriSign were both under enforceable contracts
> with respect to their role as root name server operators.
As far as I'm aware (and happy for any
On 2/14/2012 5:20 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> ...
> I agree, however I'd think a better approach would be to write a BCP for
> "important" DNS servers, not a document that sets up false expectations or
> assumptions.
+1. there are a lot of important non-root dns servers, and the collected
wisdom o
On 2/14/2012 4:19 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> ... At worst, it can be seen as an attempt at obfuscation of the fact
> that the root server operators (with one notable exception) are _NOT_
> subject to RFPs, contracts, or any other form of enforcement.
are you sharing insider knowledge from your time
On Feb 14, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
> I would assume that someone who has a concern about root server operations
> will ask each RSO if their server meets or exceeds the requirements in
> RFC2870bis and if the answer is no, they'll ask why not.
And if no acceptable answer is provided?
On Feb 14, 2012, at 6:17 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 21:39 + 2/9/12, wrote:
>> Is your opinion / argument strong enough to stop work on this draft?
> As David says, why is this document being republished?
A question I'll note has not been answered.
> My concern is that future RFPs and con
On 14 Feb 2012, at 16:34, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
One governance question. As far as I know (I am not a root name server
operator), several of the root name servers already comply with the
(very strong) requirments of this document. But not all. If the
document is published, what will happen
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 07:12:56PM +,
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
> Any more?
One governance question. As far as I know (I am not a root name server
operator), several of the root name servers already comply with the
(very strong) requirments of
Folks on this list might be interested in this draft that is in WGLC in
GEOPRIV. Please send comments to the GEOPRIV list if you have them.
Thanks,
Alissa
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Alissa Cooper
> Date: February 14, 2012 10:20:28 AM EST
> To: GEOPRIV WG
> Subject: [Geopriv] WGLC: draft
At 21:39 + 2/9/12, wrote:
I think that starting work on such a draft is a great idea -BUT- in the
mean time do not let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". I beleive
Terry agreed with that line of thnking. Of the existing Operators, A, B,
E, G, H, J, L, and M have made positive comm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi WG,
Review from Stephen and Peter resulted in a new version of DNSSEC
Operational Practices, Version 2. Besides editorial changes, the most
important changes are:
* The third school of thought for rolling a KSK that is not a trust
anchor (in secti
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2
Author(s) : Olaf M. Kolkman
14 matches
Mail list logo
