Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-08: Discuss
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
Thanks for the pointer!
g
> On 18 Jun 2024, at 7:17 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2024, at 13:33, Geoff Huston wrote:
>>
>> [change of topic]
>>
>> " things that the IETF may not have the final say on."
>>
>> Possibly true in this case, but not having the final say is very differe
On 19:50 17/06, John Levine wrote:
> According to John R. Levine :
> >It currently says:
> >
> > A name server MAY include more than one ZONEVERSION option in the
> > response if it supports multiple TYPEs. A name server MUST NOT include
> > more than one ZONEVERSION option for a given TYPE. ..
On Jun 17, 2024, at 13:33, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
> [change of topic]
>
> " things that the IETF may not have the final say on."
>
> Possibly true in this case, but not having the final say is very different to
> "having a say"
>
> I would find it interesting to understand the current state of
On Jun 17, 2024, at 13:39, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 17 Jun 2024, at 21:18, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>> The paragraph reads:
>>
>> If the "root-servers.net" zone is later signed, or if the root servers are
>> named in a
>> different zone and that zone is signed, having DNSSEC validat
Hi Paul,
On 17 Jun 2024, at 21:18, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> The paragraph reads:
>
> If the "root-servers.net" zone is later signed, or if the root servers are
> named in a
> different zone and that zone is signed, having DNSSEC validation for the
> priming queries
> might be valuable.
> The ben
[change of topic]
" things that the IETF may not have the final say on."
Possibly true in this case, but not having the final say is very different to
"having a say"
I would find it interesting to understand the current state of thinking in
DNSOP as to
whether to DNSSEC-sign the root-servers.
On Jun 17, 2024, at 09:52, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 12:19 PM Joe Abley wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2024, at 17:54, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>> Oh that's a very good point, and does make that assumption. "will be
>> valuable if root-servers.net [root-servers.net] is DNSSEC s
According to John R. Levine :
>It currently says:
>
> A name server MAY include more than one ZONEVERSION option in the
> response if it supports multiple TYPEs. A name server MUST NOT include
> more than one ZONEVERSION option for a given TYPE. ...
>;; QUESTION SECTION:
>;com.ws.sp.am.
It currently says:
A name server MAY include more than one ZONEVERSION option in the
response if it supports multiple TYPEs. A name server MUST NOT include
more than one ZONEVERSION option for a given TYPE.
Here is a real life example from my server sdn.iecc.com:
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;com.ws
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 12:19 PM Joe Abley wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2024, at 17:54, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> Oh that's a very good point, and does make that assumption. "will be
> valuable if root-servers.net is DNSSEC signed" does not make that
> assumption.
>
>
> It perhaps narrowly avoids one of t
On 17 Jun 2024, at 17:54, Tim Wicinski wrote:Oh that's a very good point, and does make that assumption. "will be valuable if root-servers.net is DNSSEC signed" does not make that assumption. It perhaps narrowly avoids one of the assumptions I mentioned but it still warmly embraces the other one
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 11:45 AM Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> Doesn't that text presuppose (a) that the current naming scheme is
> invariant and (b) the root-servers.net zone will one day be signed?
>
> I suggest phrasing that recognises current reality is probably better than
> text that specu
Hi Tim,Doesn't that text presuppose (a) that the current naming scheme is invariant and (b) the root-servers.net zone will one day be signed?I suggest phrasing that recognises current reality is probably better than text that speculates about the future, especially when it comes to things that the
Paul is correct on this - we would like a few more comments on the
clarification changes to RFC8109-bis.
Also, Willem offered some suggested text to the last paragraph of 3.3
relating to root-servers.net :
"DNSSEC validation of the priming query is valuable when root-servers.net
zone will be DNS
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-qdcount-is-one-03: 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
https
16 matches
Mail list logo
