Hi Paul
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:24:11AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2017, at 1:42, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
>
> > > Name: draft-muks-dnsop-dnssec-sha3
>
> NIST's use case for SHA3 algorithms is for when particular SHA2 algorithms
> are weakened. This would mean that the f
Since you mentioned RFC 6604 "xNAME RCODE Clarification", here's a relevant
quote from Section 3 ("RCODE Clarification"):
>When an xNAME chain is followed, all but the last query cycle necessarily had
>no error. The RCODE in the ultimate DNS response MUST BE set based on the
>final query cy
On 5 Apr 2017, at 1:42, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
Name: draft-muks-dnsop-dnssec-sha3
NIST's use case for SHA3 algorithms is for when particular SHA2
algorithms are weakened. This would mean that the fallback for RSASHA256
is RSASHA512, not a SHA3 variant. Thus, the premise for this e
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 01:54:09PM +, Donald Eastlake wrote:
> See RFC 6604.
This clears it up. Thank you.
Mukund
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
See RFC 6604.
Donald
from iPhone
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 09:34 Edward Lewis wrote:
> On 4/5/17, 01:43, "DNSOP on behalf of Mukund Sivaraman" <
> dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of m...@isc.org> wrote:
>
> >It seems BIND currently returns NXDOMAIN in this case, and the change in
> >behavior bet
On 4/5/17, 01:43, "DNSOP on behalf of Mukund Sivaraman" wrote:
>It seems BIND currently returns NXDOMAIN in this case, and the change in
>behavior between looking-into-other-zones and
>not-looking-into-other-zones in the nameserver algorithm caused a system
>test failure, hence the question.
I d
This was submitted today:
> A new version of I-D, draft-muks-dnsop-dnssec-sha3-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Mukund Sivaraman and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> Name: draft-muks-dnsop-dnssec-sha3
> Revision: 00
> Title:Use of SHA-3 (Keccak) Algorithms
In message <20170405054338.GA15831@jurassic>, Mukund Sivaraman writes:
> Evan just pointed out a case due to a system test failure that is
> interesting.. it's not clear what the behavior should be in this case,
> so please discuss:
>
> There's a nameserver that's authoritative for 2 zones exampl
Hello Mukund,
On 5 Apr 2017, at 7:43, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> Evan just pointed out a case due to a system test failure that is
> interesting.. it's not clear what the behavior should be in this case,
> so please discuss:
>
> There's a nameserver that's authoritative for 2 zones example.org. an
