On 4/7/18 1:40 am, Joe Abley wrote:
On 3 Jul 2018, at 09:11, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
This is not a complete review of the latest revision.. I'm hoping to get to
that in a day or two. But I've got a question about whether something should
be added to the document..
A question came up in
And with this, the WG Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel is
closed (actually last Friday already).
We will continue with the next step with the AD for this document, Terry
Manderson.
-- Benno
On 02/07/2018 22:20, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Firstly, thank you! (for keeping the WG inform
Dear DNSOP,
Stuart Cheshire & David Schinazi have asked me to AD sponsor the
draft-cheshire-sudn-ipv4only-dot-arpa document
[0]
..
>From the document:
"The specification for how a client discovers its network's NAT64 prefix
[RFC7050] defines the special name 'ipv4only.arpa' for this purpose, bu
This paragraph is factually incorrect.
Possibly this problem could have been avoided if we had forced all
NAT64 gateways to use the same Well-Known Prefix for IPv6 address
synthesis [RFC6052]. If the decision had been made to use a single
fixed Well-Known Prefix, then there would have
This paragraph needs to be re-written to ensure that the two reverse
zones (170.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa and 171.0.0.192.in-addr.arpa)
are created and are insecurely delegated from the parent zone. Otherwise
there is no point in having recursive servers answer for them.
As a practical matter
