Late to the party, but FWIW: I also support adoption and am willing to
discuss and review this work.
Some comments:
- Section 4.1 relaxes the restriction for resolvers from RFC 4035 to MAY
do aggressive NSEC/NSEC3 usage, while section 4.2 says that a resolver
SHOULD support aggressive NSEC usage
All,
I have read it and I like it. Still there are I think some things that
need to be addressed:
- On enabling DNSSEC via CDS/CDNSKEY: most of the policies assume some
sort of communication channel between the child zone operator and parent
zone operator, while in fact RFC 7344 registers new res
> On Apr 25, 2016, at 3:31 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 08:18:35AM +0200,
> Patrik Fältström wrote
> a message of 36 lines which said:
>
>> Either .HOME should not have been mentioned, or it should be added
>> to the registry.
>
> I fully agree it should have us
>get confirmation is to query the parent zone. So how would the parent
>"send a notification requesting a confirmation" (section 3.2) or
>"instruct the requestor to insert some record into the child domain"
>(section 3.4)?
That part definitely needs to be finished. There are a lot of us
small DNS
On 25 April 2016 at 12:39, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:46:11PM +0200,
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
> a message of 17 lines which said:
>
> > > Title : NXDOMAIN really means there is nothing
> underneath
> > > Authors : Stephane Bortz
Hi
An Errata has been filed on this (by me of all people)
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7788&eid=4677
tim
On 4/26/16 8:50 AM, Alain Durand wrote:
On Apr 25, 2016, at 3:31 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 08:18:35AM +0200,
Patrik Fältström wrote
a
