Thanks, and my apologies for failing to express myself clearer in an
earlier stage.
If next to the Key Tag, Algorithm, Digest Type, the Digest MUST also be
0, there is no longer a change in record *format* and this line
can/should be removed from the draft:
This is a change in format from stric
Thanks Paul, and double thanks to Matthijs for his diligence in wisely
forcing this.
The new version is minor, but significant. I don't feel that it needs a
new WGLC, but I want to put the diff between the two versions here so folks
may take a second look.
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=dr
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Paul Wouters wrote:
Ohh, I think Matthijs actually found a bug:
Fixed in 06 (I forgot the text update in 05). Thanks to Matthijs
for being so persistent in bringing this up. My apologies that
I did not understand your concern before.
Chairs, it is up to you to decide on r
Yes I agree,
Push a new version if Tim agrees ?
Olafur
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>
> I personally think the simplification of using all zero's is good. If
>>> someone accidentally changes the wrong number in the DS rec
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
I personally think the simplification of using all zero's is good. If
someone accidentally changes the wrong number in the DS record when
changing parameters, it will prevent a mistaken delete request. While,
the zone might still fail, at least it won
On 10-01-17 17:50, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>
>> I see that IESG has approved this document, but I am still wondering
>> this:
>>
>> On 01-12-16 13:20, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I read this again. I still wonder if in the case of DNSSEC Del
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
I see that IESG has approved this document, but I am still wondering this:
On 01-12-16 13:20, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
Hi,
I read this again. I still wonder if in the case of DNSSEC Delete
Algorithm it wouldn't be easier to say: In case the DNSSE
I see that IESG has approved this document, but I am still wondering this:
On 01-12-16 13:20, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
Hi,
I read this again. I still wonder if in the case of DNSSEC Delete
Algorithm it wouldn't be easier to say: In case the DNSSEC algorithm is
0, the Digest/Public Key MUST be ig
Hi,
I read this again. I still wonder if in the case of DNSSEC Delete
Algorithm it wouldn't be easier to say: In case the DNSSEC algorithm is
0, the Digest/Public Key MUST be ignored.
This way, you don't have to change the CDS/CDNSKEY format defined in RFC
7344, most likely causing less problems
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the
>> IETF.
>>
>>Tit
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.
Title : Managing DS records from parent via CDS/CDNSKEY
Autho
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.
Title : Managing DS records from parent via CDS/CDNSKEY
Authors : Olafur Gudmundsson
12 matches
Mail list logo
