I have given it anothre read through and it looks good.
Maybe section 7 should be titled "No changes to RFC 1035" ?
Maybe make it a bit more clear that my implementation successfully
mitigated the attack? :-)
Would it be worth adding a section on responding to RRSIG queries?
(Cloudflare REFUSEs;
Tim,
At 2016-07-22 21:39:41 -0400
Tim Wicinski wrote:
> I know we've just started talking about this, and the authors are still
> sorting out a few things, but the sense of the room we received was to
> adopt it, work on it, etc.
>
> It appears they have simplified it in the -01 version.
>
>
On 25 July 2016 at 09:37, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
> This version contains minor text and structure improvements suggested by
> TimW.
>
> Editors think the document is ready for WGLC
>
I'd agree. A comment though:
I missed this earlier, but in 2. Motivations, third paragraph... between
-00 an
On 22 July 2016 at 21:39, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> I know we've just started talking about this, and the authors are still
> sorting out a few things, but the sense of the room we received was to
> adopt it, work on it, etc.
>
> It appears they have simplified it in the -01 version.
>
>
> This start
On 26/07/2016 16:03, Shane Kerr wrote:
> I think the document itself needs some work (such as more detailed
> motivation statement, some use cases, probably getting rid of "terminate
> session", and so on).
>
> At first I thought that this should stay in homenet, but it does use a
> lot of DNS
