Re: [DNSOP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8078 (5049)

On 27-06-17 14:28, Dick Franks wrote: > > On 26 June 2017 at 15:30, Matthijs Mekking > wrote: > > > > On 26-06-17 13:29, Dick Franks wrote: > > You misunderstood: Variable length in octets, but not variable in > number of RDATA elements > > > I did

[DNSOP] FW: New Version Notification for draft-mglt-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements-05.txt

Hi, Please find a new version for the DNSSEC validators requirements. Our understanding is that the current version has considered all received comments. We appreciate your comments and feed backs. Yours, Daniel -Original Message- From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra

Re: [DNSOP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8078 (5049)

Hello, I have an erratum to this reported erratum. This proposed corrected paragraph: >Strictly speaking, the CDS record could be "CDS X 0 X 00" as only the >DNSKEY algorithm is what signals the DELETE operation, but for >clarity, the "0 0 0 00" notation is mandated -- this is not a >

Re: [DNSOP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8078 (5049)

Hello, >Dick Franks: >> What is needed now is methodical use-case analysis based on RFC8078 as it >> exists now and tested against a real implementation. The time to rewrite >> the RFC will come if/when we discover we are unable to live with it. We >> have not reached that point yet. Mark Andrews

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-06.txt

Please correct this typo: s/certs for such names/certificates for such names/ > On Jun 27, 2017, at 8:57 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operation