Hi
the Call for Adoption for this draft has completed, and there is strong
consensus for DNSOP to work on this.
Note: During the Call, a very valid point was raised whether this document
should be Standards Track or not.
The chairs don't worry what are on the documents before adoption, as we
hav
The DNSOP WG has placed draft-toorop-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones in state
Adopted by a WG (entered by Tim Wicinski)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-toorop-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones/
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
All,
As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run
regular call for adoptions over next few months. We are looking for
*explicit* support for adoption.
This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huque-dnsop-ns-revalidation
The draft is available here:
https://datatra
The DNSOP WG has placed draft-huque-dnsop-ns-revalidation in state
Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Tim Wicinski)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huque-dnsop-ns-revalidation/
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
Title : DNS TIMEOUT Resource Record
Authors : Tom Pusateri
Tim Wattenberg
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:24 AM Petr Špaček wrote:
> >
> >https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huque-dnsop-ns-revalidation-01
>
> I would appreciate a practical example of changes envisioned in the
> following paragraph:
>
> >A common reason that zone owners want to ensure that resolvers pla
Hi Shumon,
> Thanks Giovane (and Marco)!
Sure thing.
> The HTTPS site goes to a different and mostly empty page - and
> Chrome doesn't like the certificate because it has a wildcard Subject
> CN. Are you planning to fix that?
fixed.
> I know DNSSEC is likely not the focus of your experiment, b
