I think that ESNI is a nice and simple idea to solve the privacy
problems of the current TLS SNI. I forward the draft here because it
uses DNS to publish keys, under a underscore prefix.
--- Begin Message ---
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
>
> Current versions of the draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf/
I've read the document and I agree all comments were addressed. Thumbs up.
Jan
I agree that users changing DNS is a problem, but as said in my previous email
the alternative is forcing DHCPv6 (and an option for that) as a MUST for any
IPv6 implementation, or forcing a MUST for PCP support, so then RFC7225 can be
used.
I see both of those two options as a utopia right no
I think deprecating RFC7050 will be a bad idea, there are too many
implementations that really need that, while updating APIs/libraries to make
sure they comply with this seems easier.
For example, we could have a DHCPv6 option, but in the cellular world DHCPv6 is
not used ... and even in non
Hi Warren,
I agree this is needed, as RFC7050 is widely implemented, even in the case of
RFC8305 for allowing a somehow “equivalent” functionality as the CLAT for
literal addresses.
For the same reasons this document mention, in
draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-deployment, I have:
The learn
Hi Tim,
At 02:31 AM 07-07-2018, Tim Wicinski wrote:
There were initial concerns that the IPR was unclear, and never
fully settled.
All the guidance I received was that the issue would be addressed
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2909/
Yes, it is old, but it was the only reference I could dig
There were initial concerns that the IPR was unclear, and never fully
settled.
All the guidance I received was that the issue would be addressed
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2909/
Yes, it is old, but it was the only reference I could dig up.
Tim
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 3:17 AM, S Moonesamy
Hi Tim,
At 05:32 PM 06-07-2018, Tim Wicinski wrote:
One thing which arose early in the process was the issue of IPR and how
it would be resolved. The simple answer is that it is resolved farther
up the process chain. I spent time reading RFC 3979 on this topic:
That RFC is obsolete. What is
