Greetings again. There are many WG documents that could be being discussed.
https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/dnsop/doclist.html shows the following as
active:
draft-ietf-dnsop-qname-minimisation
draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies
draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback
draft-ietf-dnsop-5966-bis
draft-ietf-dnsop-d
Paul,
Thanks and +lots.
We had some very lively discussion in Honolulu, and several documents formally
adopted by the WG since. In order to make them as useful as possible, and in
order to advance them through the process and actually get RFCs published, we
gotta provide reviews, text, discuss
Hi Paul
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:42:29PM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> draft-ietf-dnsop-cookies
As part of the DNS fragments drafting, I went through
draft-eastlake-dnsext-cookies-05 yesterday, and want to send some
comments. But it seems the above is a newer version of it, so I'll read
it tomor
On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 02:25:57 +0530
Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
> As part of the DNS fragments drafting, I went through
> draft-eastlake-dnsext-cookies-05 yesterday, and want to send some
> comments. But it seems the above is a newer version of it, so I'll
> read it tomorrow and send the review.
It i
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 Working Group
of the IETF.
Title : Definition and Use of DNSSEC Negative Trust Anchors
Authors : Paul Ebersman
My feedback to a possible -01 version is to add something related to not
consider NTAs for the upper hierarchy of a failed DNSSEC domain. For instance,
even if I see a good number of .gov domains failed DNSSEC, adding a NTA
configuration for .gov would not be considered good operational practic
