>Since 1034 says that A in CH is "a domain name followed by a 16 bit
>octal Chaos address," but 882 sais "it might have the phone number of
>the host" (and gives the example
>
> +--++++
> |F.ISI.ARPA| A| CS | 213-822-
At Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:55:09 -0700,
Paul Vixie wrote:
> we should describe the positive benefits to the dns system (without
> mentioning any benefit or cost to any implementor or implementation style).
>
> "As implied by STD 13 and as made explicit herein, an authoritative
> response of code 3 (N
Ted Lemon wrote:
The issue here is that there is no interoperability problem that
these SHOULDs are addressing, so you can't have a discussion about
the exceptions.
as a hop by hop matter, this is true. as an end to end matter, this is
false.
in any case i think this SHOULD/MUST discussion
On Mar 19, 2016, at 4:04 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> [[ Dropping CURDLE because these discussions should only be in one WG ]]
As a side note: the authors asked the chairs of both DNSOP and CURDLE where
they should bring the draft; it seemed to at least the chairs that DNSOP should
probably take
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> [[ Dropping CURDLE because these discussions should only be in one WG ]]
>
>ECDSAP256SHA256 and ECDSAP384SHA384 provide more strength for
>signature size than RSASHA256 and RSASHA512 variants. It is expected
>to be raised to MUST
On 20 Mar 2016, at 10:55, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Paul Hoffman
wrote:
[[ Dropping CURDLE because these discussions should only be in one WG
]]
ECDSAP256SHA256 and ECDSAP384SHA384 provide more strength for
signature size than RSASHA256 and RSASHA512
07 would be greatly appreciated.
joel
On 2/24/16 10:27 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> All of those changes look good to me. Happy to clear the discuss
> when you post -07.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> On 25/02/16 01:12, Dave Lawrence wrote:
>> Stephen Farrell writes:
>>> Section 11.3, I
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2016, at 10:55, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Paul Hoffman
>> wrote:
>>
>> [[ Dropping CURDLE because these discussions should only be in one WG ]]
>>>
>>>ECDSAP256SHA256 and ECDSAP384SHA384 pro
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
On 20 Mar 2016, at 12:34, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
Yes, but that doesn't change what I said. Most of those domains are
signed by one entity who can change easily if the operational market
thinks that is a good idea.
Right now there are two options for on-line signers GOST-ECC and
ECDSAP256S
Hi, Guys,
A new draft about the operation of DNS cache service was just posted.
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-dnsop-dns-cache-00.txt
This is an initial version and needs more details, so we welcome any DNS
operator who has interest to join in to make this work more comprehensive.
11 matches
Mail list logo
