Hi Sara,
On 11/01/16 16:20, Sara Dickinson wrote:
>> On 1 Nov 2016, at 08:12, Jerry Lundström > "Timestamp" in "Block preamble map" is limited to microseconds, maybe
>> add that each element within the array after the first is a /million to
>> also allow nano/pico?
>
> That seems reasonable, if i
Hi Philip,
On 11/01/16 17:54, Philip Homburg wrote:
> Unless I missed some tricks why the CBOR version compresses a lot better.
The trick isn't really CBOR (which you can compare to protobuf/message
pack) but to discard "unnecessary" information (according to the C-DNS
specification).
Cheers,
Je
Hi Paul,
On 11/01/16 16:48, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> - It feels like combining both class and type into ClassType might be
> over-optimization. Since Class will almost always be IN, why not just
> have this as its own object member?
I was also looking at this and there are some values which are very
On 2 Nov 2016, at 1:09, Jerry Lundström wrote:
Hi Paul,
On 11/01/16 16:48, Paul Hoffman wrote:
- It feels like combining both class and type into ClassType might be
over-optimization. Since Class will almost always be IN, why not just
have this as its own object member?
I was also looking at
At Wed, 02 Nov 2016 15:10:18 +0900 (JST),
fujiw...@jprs.co.jp wrote:
> I submitted draft-fujiwara-dnsop-resolver-update-00 that tries to
> improve resolver algorithm.
>
> Please read it and comment.
In short: I support the motivation of the draft with some big
reservations about specific observat
Hi,
Thank you for the reviews. Looks we are almost ready for LC. Please take a few
minute and review the document.
I have a minor comment. It has been suggested that IPv6 was used in the
example. Does anyone object using only IPv6 example versus IPv4/IPv6 or IPv4
only?
Yours,
Rich and D
NS mismatch between parent zone and child zone is an issue.
I think that this draft is a very good start.
Jiankang Yao
From: fujiwara
Date: 2016-11-02 14:10
To: dnsop
Subject: [DNSOP] draft-fujiwara-dnsop-resolver-update-00
Hello,
I submitted draft-fujiwara-dnsop-resolver-update-00 that tr
Hi,
This message starts a Working Group Last Call (WGLC) for
draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-eddsa-01.
The version to be reviewed is
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-eddsa-01
Please send your comments, questions, and edit proposals to the WG mail
list until November 16th, 2016. If
On 3 November 2016 at 14:55, Daniel Migault wrote:
> The version to be reviewed is
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-curdle-dnskey-eddsa-01
Does this use Ed25519 or Ed25519ctx? It describes a context string,
which Ed25519 throws away.
___
DNSOP
