Hi all,
Comments on this document in this list would be most welcome.
My idea was that if the wg liked it, it might be adopted in the
interests of producing a BCP. With hindsight, I should have called
this "empty-mname" rather than "missing-mname", but really, what's in
a name.
Now that
Scott Rose wrote:
The original RFC 4641 came out before the update-timers draft became an
RFC. The revision would need to incorporate that as well as the
improved crypto stuff.
For the record, the DNSSEC deployment in .org has been approved by the
ICANN board
http://www.icann.org/min
On 27 Jun 2008, at 10:37, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
More seriously, if there is no ".com" name server in China, it is
indeed a problem (but I do not know if it is true or not)
If that was true, I think it would be a problem for Verisign, and for
Chinese Internet users, and possibly ICANN,
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 05:28:48PM +0800,
?? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 39 lines which said:
> If ISP located at China with domain name with www.*.com, then
> probably unreachable because of its RR stored in the DN Server
> located at USA.
We (the ".fr" registry) always use thi
The original RFC 4641 came out before the update-timers draft became an
RFC. The revision would need to incorporate that as well as the
improved crypto stuff.
So yes, I would support this effort.
Scott
Paul Hoffman wrote:
Greetings. I had a brief discussion with Olaf Kolkman about some
defi
