Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote:
>
> Having said that, even RFC 1034 admits that the non-dot-terminated form
> “is often one where the trailing dot has been omitted to save typing”,
> so if the document wants to give a nod to how DNS names are typically
> represented in practice, that would also be fine,
I posted the following on my blog yesterday evening, but I'm posting a
tweaked copy here since this WG is the main target audience.
In order to improve the robustness of Cambridge's DNSSEC setup, I want a
revamped, localized DLV to act as an enterprise trust anchor distribution
mechanism.
Kind-of
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote:
> >
> > Having said that, even RFC 1034 admits that the non-dot-terminated form
> > “is often one where the trailing dot has been omitted to save typing”,
> > so if the document wants to give a nod to how DNS names are
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:32:18AM +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> Before the root zone was signed, [isc.org](https://www.isc.org)
> created a mechanism called "DNSSEC lookaside validation", which
> allowed "islands of trust" to publish their trust anchors in a special
> `dlv.isc.org` zone, in a way tha
Tony Finch wrote:
To be truly pedantic it should mention that some protocols (mail at least)
forbid a trailing dot :-)
agree. no :-).
--
P Vixie
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
This draft was widely accepted in Singapore, and the chairs were waiting for
a revision before starting a call for adoption. That revision took a few
months
but it has been done and DNSOP is ready to start a call for adoption.
This draft addresess the bug found in the existing RFC.
This starts a
At Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:56:53 -0400,
tjw ietf wrote:
> This draft was widely accepted in Singapore, and the chairs were waiting for
> a revision before starting a call for adoption. That revision took a few
> months
> but it has been done and DNSOP is ready to start a call for adoption.
>
> This d
