On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 02:38:01PM +0100, John Dickinson wrote:
> Sz sez...
> >
> >Please don't change this. Making finer distinctions in one document,
> >clearly defined, is one thing. But please don't try to change
> >terminology we're finally starting to get people to use; it's been
> >(and cont
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 13:03:09 +0100, stephen.mor...@nominet.org.uk said:
>> * 3.1, bullets 2 and 3: technically ZSKs can be pointed to by a DS and
>> can be used as trust anchors. It would probably be easiest if
>> you declared that aspect out of scope as it isn't the recommend usage
>> case
On 19 May 2009, at 13:35, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
This is going to be a very useful document, two high-level points:
Thanks
This raises a question that we have discussed amongst ourselves,
namely
the terminology "KSK" and "ZSK". Conceptually it is simple, in
that a ZSK
signs the records
This is going to be a very useful document, two high-level points:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 01:03:09PM +0100, stephen.mor...@nominet.org.uk wrote:
> Wes Hardaker wrote on 07/05/2009 22:04:11:
>
> > I think it could be best handled by simply including a section near
> > the top that defi
Wes Hardaker wrote on 07/05/2009 22:04:11:
> As I stated in the meeting, I think this document is a great idea as an
> addition to the RFCs about DNS(SEC). Kudos for writing it, and great
> kudos for the diagrams and generally clear text.
Thank you.
> Comments though:
>
> *** Biggest one:
