On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:34:52AM -0800,
神明達哉 wrote
a message of 143 lines which said:
> - Title: "Aggressive use of NSEC/NSEC3"
>
> I think this should now be e.g., "Aggressive use of DNSSEC-validated
> cache" because of the equal weight given to the aggressive use of
> deduced wildca
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 07:38:08PM +,
Warren Kumari wrote
a message of 72 lines which said:
> > * synthesis of NXDOMAIN from NSEC (obviously; that's the minimum)
> > * synthesis of NXDOMAIN from NSEC3 (if no opt-out)
> > * synthesis of NODATA from NSEC/NSEC3
> > * synthesis of positive ans
At Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:13:27 -0500,
tjw ietf wrote:
> We felt another formal Working Group Last call was needed, though hopefully
> shorter.
>
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for:
> "Aggressive use of NSEC/NSEC3"
> draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
>
> Current versions of
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 5:59 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 07:16:37PM +,
> Warren Kumari wrote
> a message of 132 lines which said:
>
> > The authors think that they have captured / addressed everyone's
> > comments - if we missed (or misunderstood) anything, it w
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
One of my comments was not addressed. I would like, in section 10, see
some details about what exactly is implemented by Unbound and Google
Public DNS:
* synthesis of NXDOMAIN from NSEC (obviously; that's the minimum)
* synthesis of NXDOMAIN from
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:14:16AM -0500,
Paul Wouters wrote
a message of 16 lines which said:
> > One of my comments was not addressed. I would like, in section 10, see
> > some details about what exactly is implemented by Unbound and Google
> > Public DNS:
> >
> > * synthesis of NXDOMAIN fr
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
One of my comments was not addressed. I would like, in section 10, see
some details about what exactly is implemented by Unbound and Google
Public DNS:
* synthesis of NXDOMAIN from NSEC (obviously; that's the minimum)
* synthesis of NXDOMAIN from
Hi,
On 20-12-16 11:59, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> One of my comments was not addressed. I would like, in section 10, see
> some details about what exactly is implemented by Unbound and Google
> Public DNS:
>
> * synthesis of NXDOMAIN from NSEC (obviously; that's the minimum)
> * synthesis of NX
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 07:16:37PM +,
Warren Kumari wrote
a message of 132 lines which said:
> The authors think that they have captured / addressed everyone's
> comments - if we missed (or misunderstood) anything, it was
> unintentional.
One of my comments was not addressed. I would like
I have read the -07 version and I think this document is ready for
publication.
I do still think that the end of section 4 and start of section 5 is too
similar and can be combined such that it only quotes RFC 4035 one time.
Perhaps Section 5 can just start with:
5. Aggressive use of Cache
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:38 AM Bob Harold wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 02:13:27PM -0500,
> tjw ietf wrote
> a message of 94 lines which said:
>
> > This starts a Working Group Last Call for:
> > "Aggressive use o
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 8:53 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 02:13:27PM -0500,
> tjw ietf wrote
> a message of 94 lines which said:
>
> > This starts a Working Group Last Call for:
> > "Aggressive use of NSEC/NSEC3"
> > draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 02:13:27PM -0500,
tjw ietf wrote
a message of 94 lines which said:
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for:
> "Aggressive use of NSEC/NSEC3"
> draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
I've read -07 and I believe it is OK and ready for publication. All my
(
Sigh, I did.
Thank you Matthijs for keeping me honest.
tim
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 7:46 AM, Matthijs Mekking
wrote:
> Tim,
>
> On 13-12-16 20:13, tjw ietf wrote:
>
>> All
>>
>> The process of WGLC for this document engaged the working group and
>> there was much discussion and several differe
Tim,
On 13-12-16 20:13, tjw ietf wrote:
All
The process of WGLC for this document engaged the working group and
there was much discussion and several different versions. It seems that
the authors have addressed everything that has been brought up.
We felt another formal Working Group Last cal
The authors think that they have captured / addressed everyone's comments -
if we missed (or misunderstood) anything, it was unintentional.
W
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 2:13 PM tjw ietf wrote:
> All
>
> The process of WGLC for this document engaged the working group and there
> was much discussion an
16 matches
Mail list logo
