s-delegation-requireme...@ietf.org, "dnsop"
>> , dnsop-cha...@ietf.org
>> Sent: Monday, 14 November, 2016 21:56:36
>> Subject: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed
>> draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements in state "Candidate for WG
>> Adoption"
P] The DNSOP WG has placed
> draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements in state "Candidate for WG
> Adoption"
> The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements
> in state
> Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
>
> The
The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements
in state
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements
On 11/13/16 6:16 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> I read through the document and had a lot of comments, so maybe I need to
> "back up a bit."
>
> I'm conflicted over documents that define good operational practices over top
> of a standard protocol. There's much evidence we need this, for example,
>
I read through the document and had a lot of comments, so maybe I need to "back
up a bit."
I'm conflicted over documents that define good operational practices over top
of a standard protocol. There's much evidence we need this, for example, just
to pick one, the number of TLD zones with very
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Patrik Wallström wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to tell you that we have published a new version of the I-D
> draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements. It fixes all the
> comments that we have received so far, both on the mailing list a
Hi,
I just wanted to tell you that we have published a new version of the
I-D draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements. It fixes all the
comments that we have received so far, both on the mailing list and
during the meeting where it was last discussed:
https://tools.ietf.org/html
(very very delayed reply, rebooting draft now...)
On 2016-03-17 at 22:45, John Kristoff wrote:
The introduction lists 8 areas of interest. All, except "7. Name
Server" have their own section in the table of contents. Oversight?
Yes, one section was missing. Fixed now.
This sentence is a
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 09:57:15 +0100
Jakob Schlyter wrote:
> At this point, we're seeking more public comments - on this mailing
> list (unless the chairs disapproves), on the our issue tracker [4] or
> via email to the authors.
Hello Jakob and Patrik. Some comments as requested.
The introduction
nsop; Patrik Wallström
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS Delegation Requirements
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 09:57:15 +0100
Jakob Schlyter wrote:
> At this point, we're seeking more public comments - on this mailing
> list (unless the chairs disapproves), on the our issue tracker [4] or
> via e
Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Mail domains have exactly the same syntax requirements as hostnames.
Except that trailing dots are not allowed on mail domains!
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
German Bight, Humber: Northwest 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 at first in
Humber. Moderate or roug
a bad
> example and I shouldn't have cited it.
>
>
> - Kevin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 6:35 PM
> To: Darcy Kevin (FCA)
> Cc: dnsop
> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS Delegation Requirements
>
&
Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 6:35 PM
To: Darcy Kevin (FCA)
Cc: dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS Delegation Requirements
In message , "Darcy Kevin
(FCA)" writes:
> Thats a very good catch. Restrictions on *hostna
way as A /
without a LDH owner is not being used as a hostname or it is there
in error.
Mark
> - Kevin
>
> From: DNSOP mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Jacques Latour
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:00 PM
> To: Warren Kumari; Darcy Kevin (FCA
In message ,
Jacques Latour writes:
> Hi,
>
> Sent something relating to this on DNS-OARC this morning, but it seems to
> be legit to have delegation for a _tcp.example.ca, which fails the syntax
> requirements defined in section 8.1. Illegal characters MUST NOT be in
> the domain name".
>
> A
, _per_se_.
- Kevin
From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jacques Latour
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 12:00 PM
To: Warren Kumari; Darcy Kevin (FCA); dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS Delegation Requirements
Hi,
Sent something relating to this on DNS-OARC this morni
-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
Sent: February-08-16 6:51 PM
To: Darcy Kevin (FCA); dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS Delegation Requirements
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:38 PM Darcy Kevin (FCA)
mailto:kevin.da...@fcagroup.com>> wrote:
My 2 cents…
I don’t think any DNS RFC should be
ren Kumari
> *Sent:* Monday, February 08, 2016 9:21 AM
> *To:* Ralf Weber; Jakob Schlyter
> *Cc:* dnsop; Patrik Wallström
> *Subject:* Re: [DNSOP] DNS Delegation Requirements
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:00 AM Ralf Weber wrote:
>
> Moin!
>
> On 8 Feb
Schlyter
Cc: dnsop; Patrik Wallström
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] DNS Delegation Requirements
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:00 AM Ralf Weber
mailto:d...@fl1ger.de>> wrote:
Moin!
On 8 Feb 2016, at 9:57, Jakob Schlyter wrote:
> At this point, we're seeking more public comments - on this mailing
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:00 AM Ralf Weber wrote:
> Moin!
>
> On 8 Feb 2016, at 9:57, Jakob Schlyter wrote:
> > At this point, we're seeking more public comments - on this mailing
> > list (unless the chairs disapproves), on the our issue tracker [4] or
> > via email to the authors.
> Thanks a lot
On 08/02/2016 12:07, Jakob Schlyter wrote:
> On 8 feb. 2016, at 11:00, Ralf Weber wrote:
>> 6.2 The name servers SHOULD NOT belong to the same AS I would drop
>> that requirement altogether or make it a MAY. We really should not
>> tell people how to build networks from the DNS world.
>
> I wo
Olafur,
> On 08 Feb 2016, at 13:57, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> Jakob, Patrik
> thanks for writing this up, a great start.
>
> On first read this document seems to be duplicating what is in
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1912
> It is hard to see what is new and what is the same.
Yes, som
airs disapproves), on the our issue tracker [4] or via email
> to the authors.
>
>
> jakob
>
>
> [1]
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements-00.txt
> [2] https://zonemaster.net/
> [3] https://github.com/dotse/zonemaster
> [4] https
On 8 feb. 2016, at 11:00, Ralf Weber wrote:
> I would soften some of language and have a question.
>
> 5.1. There are use cases where the serial number rarely if ever is the same
> on all servers and it's only really used inside communication for a given
> domain and not during resolution. So
In message <3a6ef5a0-928c-4f10-bd68-265dae87f...@kirei.se>, Jakob Schlyter writ
es:
7.4 is per DNSSEC algorithm in the DS RRset.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
ves), on the our issue tracker [4] or via email to
> the authors.
>
>
> jakob
>
>
> [1]
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements-00.txt
> [2] https://zonemaster.net/
> [3] https://github.com/dotse/zonemaster
> [4] https:/
Moin!
On 8 Feb 2016, at 9:57, Jakob Schlyter wrote:
At this point, we're seeking more public comments - on this mailing
list (unless the chairs disapproves), on the our issue tracker [4] or
via email to the authors.
Thanks a lot for this work. I certainly would like dnsop to work on
this.
I
g/id/draft-wallstrom-dnsop-dns-delegation-requirements-00.txt
[2] https://zonemaster.net/
[3] https://github.com/dotse/zonemaster
[4] https://github.com/CENTRccTLDs/TRTF/issues
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
28 matches
Mail list logo
