-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23-10-12 16:00, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> While I think the idea of passing keys though the registry between
> operator has some merit I do not see it as viable alternative
> outside few cc'tld's thus it it does not deserve to be included in
> a
At 13:32 +0200 10/23/12, Antoin Verschuren wrote:
1. Current practice proves that the majority of DNSSEC domains in the
world today is provisioned by sending a DNSKEY record to te registry,
and not DS. Running code for the majority of DNSSEC domains uses DNSKEY.
Do you have any proof of this?
On 23/10/2012 09:46, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On 23 Oct 2012, at 14:29, Miek Gieben wrote:
The paragraph is a *suggestion* in a *bcp*.
I don't see what point you're trying to make with this remark.
Indeed, if the suggestion is not congruent with current practice,
it see
On 23 Oct 2012, at 14:29, Miek Gieben wrote:
> The paragraph is a *suggestion* in a *bcp*.
I don't see what point you're trying to make with this remark.
Indeed, if the suggestion is not congruent with current practice,
it seems to me that it very much ought not to belon
[ Quoting in "Re: [DNSOP] Changes since
draft-iet..." ]
> The paragraph is 4.3.2.
> The advice in this paragraph, which hasn't changed since 2009 when it
... so you couldn't have sent in a change sooner? ;-)
> was first written down, has been overtaken by new insight and practices.
> It advises
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16-10-12 16:03, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The document draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc464bis-13 has seen some issues
> while being in AUTH and RCF-EDITOR state. This e-mail will list all
> the suggested changes to address those issues.
While read
