On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 7:41 PM Peter van Dijk
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2021-06-16 at 19:38 -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> > All
> >
> > The chairs have been doing prep work for the upcoming IETF meeting; one
> > issue that we are working on is reaching out to authors whose working group
> > documents h
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 8:49 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Someone mentioned Mark's glue-is-not-optional draft. The chairs really
> liked this document,
> and wanted to keep it alive. We've reached out to
> mark several times with no response, so we requested the XML from the
> secretariat,
> dumpe
Hi Stephane. Thanks a lot for your implementations!
I have a modified dig version with support for rrserial in:
https://gitlab.isc.org/huguei/bind9/-/tree/rrserial
; <<>> DiG 9.17.14 <<>> @200.1.122.30 dateserial.example.com txt +rrserial +nsid
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got
This is all great feedback everyone, please don't stop.
I wanted to say we'll talk to Warren on the 5011-considerations document,
but Warren is a co-author, so we'll need to start over.
Someone mentioned Mark's glue-is-not-optional draft. The chairs really
liked this document,
and wanted to keep
On Fri, 18 Jun 2021, Paul Hoffman wrote:
I propose replacing rfc5011-security-considerations
I keep meaning to republish it with Olafur's suggested reduced title
(since it's really describing just one problem). But it's unlikely to
get published as an RFC due to lack of consensus after a long
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 6:33 PM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2021, at 2:21 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> >
> > Peter van Dijk writes:
> >
> >> I propose replacing rfc5011-security-considerations
> >
> > I keep meaning to republish it with Olafur's suggested reduced title
> > (since it's really
draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-information (in the expired queue) can probably be
dropped. It was intended for some of the use cases of the ADD WG, but that WG
is now no longer considering the document for its work.
--Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
On Jun 18, 2021, at 2:21 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>
> Peter van Dijk writes:
>
>> I propose replacing rfc5011-security-considerations
>
> I keep meaning to republish it with Olafur's suggested reduced title
> (since it's really describing just one problem). But it's unlikely to
> get published
Shivan Kaul Sahib writes:
> Many services on the Internet need to verify ownership or control of
> domains in the Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034] [RFC1035]. This
> verification often relies on adding or editing DNS records within the
> domain. This document surveys various techni
Peter van Dijk writes:
> I propose replacing rfc5011-security-considerations
I keep meaning to republish it with Olafur's suggested reduced title
(since it's really describing just one problem). But it's unlikely to
get published as an RFC due to lack of consensus after a long drawn out
convers
On Jun 18, 2021, at 16:36, Paul Wouters wrote:
> Sure, but if we were to deprecate 5011, what would we expect to happen
> when we want to do another rollover ?
To be more clear, I was *not* suggesting that 5011 should be deprecated.
Joe
___
DNSOP ma
On Fri, 18 Jun 2021, Joe Abley wrote:
On Jun 18, 2021, at 13:41, Peter van Dijk wrote:
I propose replacing rfc5011-security-considerations with a short document
deprecating 5011 in its entirety.
Eh? 5011 is baked into various software. Why would replace 5011 ?
Did I miss something?
The
On 18 Jun 2021, at 14:45, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2021, at 13:41, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
>> I propose replacing rfc5011-security-considerations with a short document
>> deprecating 5011 in its entirety.
>
> Eh? 5011 is baked into various software. Why would replace 5011 ?
>
> Did
On Jun 18, 2021, at 13:41, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> I propose replacing rfc5011-security-considerations with a short document
> deprecating 5011 in its entirety.
Eh? 5011 is baked into various software. Why would replace 5011 ?
Did I miss something?
Paul
If you’ve got opinions about how the IETF is run, and want to influence its
priorities and leaders, please consider adding your name to the pool of
potential Nomcom members.
The deadline to volunteer for the 2021-2022 Nomcom is next Wednesday.
See Gabriel’s email below for details, but for th
On Wed, 2021-06-16 at 19:38 -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> All
>
> The chairs have been doing prep work for the upcoming IETF meeting; one issue
> that we are working on is reaching out to authors whose working group
> documents have recently expired. While doing this, Benno did some datatracker
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 10:03:22AM -0400,
Hugo Salgado wrote
a message of 55 lines which said:
> In the case of NXDOMAIN, the reason for not adding RRSERIAL is
> because the response already has the SOA in the AUTHORITY, which
> would make it redundant.
OK, I see. Here are two implementations
17 matches
Mail list logo
