Jason,
On 17/02/2013 10:22, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>> Based on feedback yesterday on the list, I did a quick –04 update
Personally I would also have changed all references to RFC4641 into RFC6781.
Regards,
--
Marco
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf
On 12/01/13 17:48, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> For the record, I've reviewed
> draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-00, I find it well-written
> and clear and I fully support it. Registering these names would be a
> very good idea.
Would it be worthwhile to add .bit to the list (Namecoin)?
On 12/17/13 09:21, Jianjun Ning wrote:
> All,
> When I run the command 'dig www.google.com.hk +bufsize=768',I got this
> ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
> ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; MBZ: 0005 , udp: 512
Does it increase after consecutive queries?
It reminds me of this:
https://www.sidnlabs.nl/laatste-be
Doug Barton schreef op 06-05-14 19:27:
>
> Just because we _can_ make something work better doesn't mean we _should_.
>
Off course we should, it's our mission: :-)
"The goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better.
(http://www.ietf.org/)
--
Marco
__
Hi,
SHA-1 for TLS-certificates is considered insufficient nowadays.
But what about the usage of RSA/SHA-1 in DNSSEC ?
Should TLD's such as .se make preparations for an algorithm roll-over?
--
Marco
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME-cryptografische ondertekening
__
