On 2011-07-08, at 18:23, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> Just let Whois die a peaceful death, it serves no purpose other than make
> work.
Other people are working on the death of whois; I was just trying to clarify
the type of data I was talking about.
Joe
_
On 08/07/2011 5:18 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2011-07-08, at 14:03, Stephen Morris wrote:
If the answer is yes, then the CDS approach is certainly one to be
looked at. The answer also suggests that we should be looking at an
equivalent mechanism for updating NS (and possibly glue) information in
On 2011-07-08, at 14:03, Stephen Morris wrote:
> If the answer is yes, then the CDS approach is certainly one to be
> looked at. The answer also suggests that we should be looking at an
> equivalent mechanism for updating NS (and possibly glue) information in
> the parent zone. Perhaps all can
On 30/06/2011 23:33, George Barwood wrote:
> Is the earlier requirements draft from 2005 (linked above) substantially
> incomplete in some way?
> I think that would be a reasonable basis to measure, I would claim that the
> CDS
> record is capable of satisfying the requirements expressed there i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I posted a new version of this document. It's a rather small change
compared to the -01, see the rfcdiff:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-mekking-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-bis-02.txt
I would like to take the opportunity to initia
