Re: [DNSOP] Asking TLD's to perform checks.

Moin! On 7 Nov 2015, at 18:20, Antoin Verschuren wrote: But that’s not the point. The point is that we need consensus on criteria for what is good and what is bad DNS(SEC). Isn't that what the RFCs describe. Is there really a point where someone disagrees? I agree with you that there is no i

Re: [DNSOP] Asking TLD's to perform checks.

Moin! On 8 Nov 2015, at 0:52, Mark Andrews wrote: > Fixing misimplementations of the protocol is different to fixing > misconfiguration of servers. The draft is aimed primarially at > fixing misimplementations rather than misconfigurations though both > need fixing. Sorry I over generalised. To

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-ogud-dnsop-maintain-ds in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

> On Nov 5, 2015, at 9:55 PM, Shane Kerr wrote: > > Dear dnsop working group, > > On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 17:20:18 -0800 > IETF Secretariat wrote: > >> The DNSOP WG has placed draft-ogud-dnsop-maintain-ds in state >> Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski) >> >> The document is avai

Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-00.txt

> On Nov 2, 2015, at 12:28 AM, Woodworth, John R > wrote: > > See inline comments: > >> -Original Message- >> From: Edward Lewis [mailto:edward.le...@icann.org >> ] >> Subject: Re: [DNSOP] discussion for draft-woodworth-bulk-rr-00.txt >> >> Process wise

Re: [DNSOP] The DNSOP WG has placed draft-ogud-dnsop-maintain-ds in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

>> * Perhaps "Accept with challenge" should provide some advice on how >> this works. For example, a TXT record with a unique key for each zone >> (or customer) seems like a good recommendation. It might also make >> sense if each child domain (or customer) has a unique ownername to >> look for