In message <4c2335ae.90...@nlnetlabs.nl>, "W.C.A. Wijngaards" writes:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi George,
>
> On 06/24/2010 11:59 AM, George Barwood wrote:
> > It could also note that validators SHOULD NOT check the RRSIG for a DNSKEY
> RRset
> > where all the keys
At 23:08 +0200 6/22/10, wrote:
The hospital that does surgery on my foot probably gives me those
inserts as well.
What was unclear in the analogy is that the inserts are custom made,
from a prescription. So, no, the hospital would not likely have the
(same) inserts.
Where does DNS proto
- Original Message -
From: "W.C.A. Wijngaards"
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] That key size argument...was Re: The case for single
active key
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi George,
>
> On 06/24/2010 11:59 AM, George Barwood
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi George,
On 06/24/2010 11:59 AM, George Barwood wrote:
> It could also note that validators SHOULD NOT check the RRSIG for a DNSKEY
> RRset
> where all the keys are validated by DS records.
This is not possible, and Casey thought similarly, so her
- Original Message -
From: "Olafur Gudmundsson"
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] That key size argument...was Re: The case for single
active key
> Should the WG document recommend/bless single key usage in
> some/many cases.
Not sure about recommending,
