Re: [DNSOP] new version submitted for draft-arends-private-use-tld

In article <5d255eee-4cab-44d6-8c47-bbe9c7f5c...@hopcount.ca> you write: >> It contains plenty of examples of how user-assigned code elements are used >> in the field, including >other ISO standards, the UN, UNICODE, CAB/forum, and the IETF itself. I also think it's an improvement, and concur wit

Re: [DNSOP] new version submitted for draft-arends-private-use-tld

Hi Roy, On 2 May 2020, at 10:09, Roy Arends wrote: > Ed and I just submitted a new version of our private-use TLD draft. > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-arends-private-use-tld-01.txt > > This draft has substantial more information than the first draft. It explains > that a private-use names

[DNSOP] Protocol Action: 'Extended DNS Errors' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-16.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Extended DNS Errors' (draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-16.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Domain Name System Operations Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari, Robert Wilton and Barry Leiba. A URL

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-15.txt

Eric Orth writes: > "Because long EXTRA-TEXT fields may trigger truncation, which is undesirable > given > the supplemental nature of EDE.  Implementers and operators creating EDE  > options SHOULD avoid > lengthy EXTRA-TEXT contents." Thanks for pointing that out; it was indeed a failed edit a

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-extended-error-16.txt

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 WG of the IETF. Title : Extended DNS Errors Authors : Warren Kumari Evan Hunt

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 12:02 PM Daniel Migault wrote: > Hi Bob, > > I apology the previous email has just been sent unexpectedly. > > Thanks for the comments. The new version of the file is available here [1] > and a diff is available at [2]. > > I propose the following text for clarification. Fe

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hi Bob, I apology the previous email has just been sent unexpectedly. Thanks for the comments. The new version of the file is available here [1] and a diff is available at [2]. I propose the following text for clarification. Feel free to let me know if that addresses your concern. OLD: Not upda

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hi Bob, Thanks for the comments. The new version of the file is available here [1] and diff can be seen at [2]. I propose the following text. Does it clarify the concern ? Avoiding the configuration file to be updated prevents old configuration file to survive to writing error on read-only file

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-pwouters-powerbind-04.txt

Hello, I'm still a bit skeptical. 1. Validation without logging. At the end of 3.1 you claim that mode is still useful.  When I focus on intentional attacks, signing a malicious DS seems among the easiest ones, and that can't be detected without the attacked machine doing logging (the DS might be

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

Hi, As a co-author, I am supporting the draft. I believe the document is useful to encourage enabling DNSSEC validation on resolvers. Yours, Daniel On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 4:29 PM Bob Harold wrote: > Looks useful, I will review. > > -- > Bob Harold > > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 3:13 PM IETF Secr