speaking for the authors of the draft below, i request adoption by
dnsop. --vixie
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dulaunoy-kaplan-passive-dns-cof/
Internet Engineering Task Force A. Dulaunoy
Internet-Draft CIR
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I am not sure I am so sanguine, but this put in my mind the
> draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize draft, which I now realise was never
> published as an RFC.
>
> I'd like this thread to discuss the "so what, use TCP!" remark.
Nice idea.
http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2013-09/dnstc
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> It _might_, if the idea were instead that validators used n of m.
N of M validation also solves the other problems Joe mentioned, to do with
key rollover and failure to sign. That is, if a signer drops out (because
it failed to sign the DNSKEY RRset, or because it rolle
