On 2/18/13 4:56 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>In message <51228dfb.3070...@ogud.com>, Olafur Gudmundsson writes:
>> Jason, in section 10 you talk about possible early removal the NTA when
>>validation succeeds but there may be instances where validation succeeds
>>when using a sub-set of the authori
On 2/20/13 1:52 PM, "Joe Abley" wrote:
>
>On 2013-02-20, at 14:50, Richard Lamb wrote:
>
>> FWIW: The -04 draft looks good. It is clear and well written and I
>>think it is a valuable resource.
>> As I am late to looking at this draft please take this only as a
>>comment from a narrow minded e
On 2/18/13 3:24 PM, "Olafur Gudmundsson" wrote:
>Jason, in section 10 you talk about possible early removal the NTA when
>validation succeeds but there may be instances where validation succeeds
>when using a sub-set of the authoritative servers thus NTA should only
>be removed if all servers ar
On 2/20/13 1:50 PM, "Richard Lamb"
mailto:richard.l...@icann.org>> wrote:
As I am late to looking at this draft please take this only as a comment from a
narrow minded engineer ;-) After the rationale, explanations and caveats I
kept looking for how to implement a NTA. After initially thinkin
On 2013-02-20, at 14:50, Richard Lamb wrote:
> FWIW: The -04 draft looks good. It is clear and well written and I think it
> is a valuable resource.
> As I am late to looking at this draft please take this only as a comment from
> a narrow minded engineer ;-) After the rationale, explanati
Jason-
FWIW: The -04 draft looks good. It is clear and well written and I think it is
a valuable resource.
As I am late to looking at this draft please take this only as a comment from a
narrow minded engineer ;-) After the rationale, explanations and caveats I
kept looking for how to implem
In message <51228dfb.3070...@ogud.com>, Olafur Gudmundsson writes:
> Jason, in section 10 you talk about possible early removal the NTA when
> validation succeeds but there may be instances where validation succeeds
> when using a sub-set of the authoritative servers thus NTA should only
> be r
Jason, in section 10 you talk about possible early removal the NTA when
validation succeeds but there may be instances where validation succeeds
when using a sub-set of the authoritative servers thus NTA should only
be removed if all servers are providing "good" signatures.
Furthermore what to
Thanks for catching that - will correct this in -05.
Jason
On 2/18/13 10:57 AM, "Marco Davids (SIDN)" wrote:
>Jason,
>
>On 17/02/2013 10:22, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>>> Based on feedback yesterday on the list, I did a quick 04 update
>
>Personally I would also have changed all references to RF
On Feb 17, 2013, at 10:22 AM, "Livingood, Jason"
wrote:
> Based on feedback yesterday on the list, I did a quick –04 update, which is
> now at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-livingood-negative-trust-anchors/.
>
>
> The are seven open issues documented at the end of the I-D. But t
Jason,
On 17/02/2013 10:22, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>> Based on feedback yesterday on the list, I did a quick –04 update
Personally I would also have changed all references to RFC4641 into RFC6781.
Regards,
--
Marco
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf
On 17/02/2013 10:22, Livingood, Jason wrote:
Based on feedback yesterday on the list, I did a quick –04 update, which
is now at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-livingood-negative-trust-anchors/.
The are seven open issues documented at the end of the I-D. But the most
important questions
On Feb 17, 2013, at 10:22 AM, "Livingood, Jason"
wrote:
> 1 – Is this worth consideration as a WG I-D or should it continue only as an
> individual I-D?
Yes, wg i-d.
> 2 – If the answer to #1 is that it should be a WG I-D, would you like a brief
> discussion of the open issues at IETF 86?
No
13 matches
Mail list logo