Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-server-cookies-05: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to htt
Fair enough, thanks.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 7:56 AM Willem Toorop wrote:
> Op 16-12-2020 om 19:55 schreef Martin Duke via Datatracker:
> > --
> > COMMENT:
> >
Dear DNSOP, Stephen and Benjamin,
After IESG evaluation it was decided that we needed to post a revised
version of the DNS Server Cookies draft, with the DISCUSS position
resolved. Also SECDIR review had a "Has Issues" result.
This is that revised version.
To resolve the SECDIR review issues and
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 : Interoperable Domain Name System (DNS) Server Cookies
Authors : Ondrej Sury
On 1/13/21 10:28 AM, Peter van Dijk wrote:
That all said, I now no longer think we need to do a whole
update/clarification thing on this, but I will add a note to my
document saying that changing the NSEC TTL might affect wildcards, as
you requested earlier.
Sounds good to me. Thanks.
--Vladi
Hello DNSOP,
I believe this version addresses all comments posted on this list. If
not, please let me know!
>From the Document history Appendix:
* document was adopted
* various minor editorial changes
* now also updates 4035
* use .example instead of .com for the example
* m
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 : NSEC(3) TTLs and NSEC Aggressive Use
Author : Peter van Dijk
Filename: draft-i
On Wed, 2021-01-13 at 10:21 +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 11:33 +0100, Vladimír Čunát wrote:
> > Well, if the client requests the proof (+dnssec), you have to include
> > those NSEC*s and I'd consider it incorrect to prolong their TTL. I'd be
> > surprised if someone chose
On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 11:33 +0100, Vladimír Čunát wrote:
> Well, if the client requests the proof (+dnssec), you have to include
> those NSEC*s and I'd consider it incorrect to prolong their TTL. I'd be
> surprised if someone chose that lack of +dnssec could change this TTL
> behavior, except f
