Moin!
As pointed out several times throughout the draft DNSSEC deployment
would make reverse mappings more reliable. So wouldn't it be a good
idea to put a paragraph in the draft to encourage LIRs and providers
to sign there reverse zones? Key management for reverse zone probably
isn't as
Rob Austein wrote:
At Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:18:25 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Is this a genuine invitation for open participation, or are the wg
activities subject to the arbitrary censorship directive issued earlier
by you (ref
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.ht
Dear colleagues,
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:50:01PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Title : Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
> Author(s) : D. Senie, A. Sullivan
> Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-03.txt
>
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 08:01:51AM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
> Is this proposed wg activity already limited by the message archived at
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html ?
I actually support such a limitation, because it is constrained this
way:
[. .
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:28:23AM +0200, Ralf Weber wrote:
> Moin!
>
> As pointed out several times throughout the draft DNSSEC deployment
> would make reverse mappings more reliable. So wouldn't it be a good
> idea to put a paragraph in the draft to encourage LIRs and providers
> to sign t
Hi Dean,
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:22:08PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > but if others disagree with me, I will cheerfully include your
> > suggestions.
>
> It seems others disagree.
On the point in question, I have received not a single indication of
agreement with your proposed text. Unti
Dear colleagues,
It has taken me longer than I expected, but I have reviewed
draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-07.
I note that in section 2.2.3, we have this:
A zone's name servers should be reachable by all IP transport
protocols (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) in common use.
I have read differing o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thierry Moreau) writes:
> This question is serious, to the extent that the DNSOP activities are
> worth the effort devoted to it by participants. So let me re-prhase the
> question (actually the question had two facets):
>
> Is this proposed wg activity open (i.e. "The IETF h
Paul Vixie (vixie) writes:
> though asullivan's answer ("it depends") is probably more accurate. t-m
> has in the past said that he wants IETF to standardize encumbered IPR so
> that he can make money from license fees paid by people who deploy it. i
> think that's offensive screwheadedness and i
I urge people to support my draft (draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status).
My draft encourages Reverse DNS, improves understanding of Reverse DNS,
informs about discredited practices, and recommends good practices. My
draft accomplishes the purpose charted by the WG much better than the
Sullivan draft
10 matches
Mail list logo
