Moin!
On 26 Oct 2024, at 21:10, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> If you believe this draft is ready for publication as an RFC, please state
> your support. Conversely, if you feel the document isn’t ready for
> publication, please provide your concerns and reasoning.
Given that we have an implementat
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 8:28 PM Ben Schwartz wrote:
> This is why I wanted to raise this topic. I don't believe we have thought
> very carefully about when DCV is actually safe or appropriate, and I don't
> think we should be recommending a mechanism without consensus and guidance
> for what thi
Tim, yes, I agree we should be more precise about this term.
The draft covers the case of "account specific" DCV - here we are talking
about accounts at the application service provider that the domain owner
owns, and the domain owner wants to assert that individual accounts are to
be verified as
On Sunday, November 3, 2024 2:30:16 PM UTC Shumon Huque wrote:
> ...
>
> I find it fascinating that working on greasing is helping to sharpen our
> collective understanding of EDNS version negotiation rules, and where we
> might want to improve, change, or clarify things (I'm sure other
> protocol
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 2:59 PM Ben Schwartz wrote:
> I think this draft should offer more background on the problem space,
> describing the situations where these DCV patterns are appropriate or
> inappropriate. In particular, I would like to see text clearly
> distinguishing two patterns:
>
>
On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:46 AM Paul Vixie wrote:
> On Sunday, November 3, 2024 10:09:22 AM UTC Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 08:35:47PM +,
>
> > Paul Vixie wrote
>
> >
>
> > a message of 59 lines which said:
>
> > > The version number in the initiation is the on
On Sunday, November 3, 2024 10:09:22 AM UTC Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 08:35:47PM +,
> Paul Vixie wrote
>
> a message of 59 lines which said:
> > The version number in the initiation is the one that the initiator
> > is expecting in the response.
>
> Do you mean t
On Sun, Nov 03, 2024 at 11:21:01AM +1100,
Mark Andrews wrote
a message of 61 lines which said:
> And yes, if you support version n you also support all versions up to n.
Is it written in the RFC? I don't think so. In a faraway future, if we
have EDNS, say version 3, we may have servers suppo
On Sat, Nov 02, 2024 at 08:35:47PM +,
Paul Vixie wrote
a message of 59 lines which said:
> The version number in the initiation is the one that the initiator
> is expecting in the response.
Do you mean that:
Requestor -> EDNS = 0
Responder -> EDNS = 1
is forbidden? RFC 6891 does not say
Issues
--
* ietf-wg-dnsop/DNSOP_Doc_Tracker (+1/-1/💬3)
1 issues created:
- draft-crocker-dnsop-dnssec-algorithm-lifecycle (by moonshiner)
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/DNSOP_Doc_Tracker/issues/19
3 issues received 3 new comments:
- #15 draft-hardaker-dnsop-rfc8624-bis et al (1
10 matches
Mail list logo
