Hello!
I just found a draft regarding DNSSec solving post-quantum algorithms
[1]. From a talk about it on csnog.eu site. A very surprising fact for
it is seems never been mentioned here, where most DNSSec related
standards were done recently. It might be just my inexperience, but it
seems to
Hi Petr,
On 2/8/24 11:10, Petr Menšík wrote:
I just found a draft regarding DNSSec solving post-quantum algorithms [1]. From
a talk about it on csnog.eu site. A very surprising fact for it is seems never
been mentioned here, where most DNSSec related standards were done recently.
It's a rese
From: Manu Bretelle
Date: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 14:19
To: Peter Thomassen
Cc: Edward Lewis , Ben Schwartz ,
"dnsop@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: General comment about downgrades vs. setting
expectations in protocol definitions
>Agreed, I don't think that the protocol shoul
>Agreed, I don't think that the protocol should prescribe what
>to do in case of "operational error". Differentiating an
>"operational error" from an actual malicious interference is
>very likely going to be a slippery slope. That being said, I
>think it will be useful for adop
Prior to the news breaking that having two keys with the same key tag in a TLD
led to an outage in late January, I was debugging some analysis code of mine
that broke when a different TLD simultaneously published two DNSKEY resource
records with the same key tag. This code had been fixed once
Chairs,
Quick questions
why a new list and what is that lists standing in the IETF?
Is this precursor for a BOF and possible new working group ?
thanks
Ólafur
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 2:37 PM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings. After the DNSOP interim meeting last week, Warren set up a new
> maili
On 2/8/24, 09:25, "DNSOP on behalf of Philip Homburg" wrote:
>whether fallback to NS/DS is encouraged by the operator of the zone.
>
>If DELEG is mainly used to signal that a secure transport, such as DoT, DoH,
>or DoQ, is available then falling back to NS/DS might be preferred (by the
>zone op
