Hi Ólafur,
On 08/02/2024 16:48, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
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 ?
For now, the mailing list is a non-WG list on a specific topic. If
there is a new WG after the B
Dear WG,
This is a Call for Agenda Items for the IETF 119 in Brisbane, Australia.
DNSOP has requested two sessions for the IETF 119 so that we have
sufficient time to discuss individual drafts. The allocation of two
sessions is yet to be confirmed and the preliminary IETF119 agenda will
be p
We would like to invite you to our upcoming virtual workshop on "DNS and
Internet Naming Research Directions - 2024" (DINR-2024). We will be
holding this workshop virtually over Zoom on Thursday 2024-04-04 from
14:00 to 20:00 UTC (that's 07:00-13:00 PDT on the US west coast).
This year, we have a
> One of the misconceptions in DNSSEC is that the zone administrator
> is in control of the situation, dictating the state of signing,
> the cryptography in use, and so on. DNSSEC is for the benefit of
> the querier, not the responder. A zone administrator can't force
> a querier to validate the
> On Feb 8, 2024, at 6:41 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> ...
>
> When DNSSEC was designed, the possibility of tags colliding was known. The
> validation process was defined to expect that a tag might lead to a
> non-singleton set of keys. When it came to key management, and the practice
> of
The primary use of the key tag is to select the correct key to validate the
signature from multiple keys.
--
Mark Andrews
> On 10 Feb 2024, at 12:38, Wellington, Brian
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 8, 2024, at 6:41 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> When DNSSEC was designed, the possi
