On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 11:47 PM Paul Vixie wrote:
> see again: https://www.bortzmeyer.org/hackathon-ietf-119.html
>
Paul - what part of Stephane's blog post are you pointing out?
He does not mention NSEC3 there (and I was working on Compact DoE prototype
implementations using NSEC at the same
On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 1:58 PM Patrick Mevzek via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Reviewer: Patrick Mevzek
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
Thanks for the review ...
> However, I do find in §3 this to be a little weak:
> " While it could support NSEC3 too, there is no benefit in int
see again: https://www.bortzmeyer.org/
hackathon-ietf-119.html[1]
[1] https://www.bortzmeyer.org/hackathon-ietf-119.html
___
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 10:31 PM John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Patrick Mevzek via Datatracker <
> ietf-datatrac...@ext.deepcore.org> said:
> >However, I do find in §3 this to be a little weak:
> >" While it could support NSEC3 too, there is no benefit in introducing the
> >additional comp
It appears that Patrick Mevzek via Datatracker
said:
>However, I do find in §3 this to be a little weak:
>" While it could support NSEC3 too, there is no benefit in introducing the
>additional complexity associated with it." Because Motivation in §1 clearly
>explains that this new scheme allows
Pull requests
-
* ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-domain-verification-techniques (+1/-0/💬0)
1 pull requests submitted:
- A clumsy attempt to reorder the recommendations (by moonshiner)
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-domain-verification-techniques/pull/164
Reviewer: Patrick Mevzek
Review result: Ready with Nits
Hi,
I have been selected as the DNS Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
DNS Directorate seeks to review all DNS or DNS-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of
On Monday, December 23, 2024 11:08:11 AM UTC Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> The DSYNC record contains the name of the target and a port number, but no
> indication of which flavor of DNS transport should be used to connect to
> that port to deliver the NOTIFY. If the port is 53 then Do53 over UDP seems
On Mon, Dec 23, 2024 at 10:10 AM Shumon Huque wrote:
> >
> > >Protocol optimizations that permit DNS resolvers to synthesize
> > >NXDOMAIN responses, like [RFC8020] and [RFC8198], cannot be realized
> > >with zones using Compact Denial of Existence. In general, no online
> > >sig
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 9:39 AM Paul Hoffman
wrote:
> [ replying to Mukund Sivaraman ]
> Given that the IETF just started an IETF-wide last call, it is
inappropriate > to send messages about the draft just to DNSOP. The
instructions in the last > call message describe where the messages should
The DSYNC record contains the name of the target and a port number, but no
indication of which flavor of DNS transport should be used to connect to that
port to deliver the NOTIFY. If the port is 53 then Do53 over UDP seems like a
reasonable choice, but if the port is 853 then it could be either
11 matches
Mail list logo
