All,
At 2016-08-04 20:03:35 -0400
Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Remember the Resolver Priming draft? This thing has been kicking around
> for a good solid 5 years. It stalled for a few years waiting for the
> busy authors perform some updates.
> Then Paul Hoffman took the reins and has done a great jo
"Ben Campbell" writes:
[everything else addressed but I had a question about this last one:]
>>> -8: Seems like there could be more to say about the potential
>>> consequences about the “fail or proceed without security” decision
>>> in 6
>>> and 6.1.
>>
>> I think the world is very much at a l
"Stephen Farrell" writes:
> Why omit sha256 (in particular Alg = 8) from this? That
> seems like a quite bad plan and *not* a BCP given our
> current knowledge of hash functions.
I've changed the text to test for both. I think that's a good suggestion.
> general, mostly 3.x.y: it'd have been
"Alissa Cooper" writes:
> - Agree with Terry's DISCUSS.
Fixed, FYI (Terry agrees with the solution at least; see that thread).
>
> - Sec. 2: The last paragraph here isn't really about "goals" and seems
> like it belongs more appropriately in Sec 3.
Good point. Moving it to a new "NOTE" in sect
Hi Wes,
On 05/08/16 22:18, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> "Stephen Farrell" writes:
>
>> Why omit sha256 (in particular Alg = 8) from this? That
>> seems like a quite bad plan and *not* a BCP given our
>> current knowledge of hash functions.
>
> I've changed the text to test for both. I think that's
