On 3 Mar 2014, at 14:19, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
3. The root zone nameservers should either return NXDOMAIN
responses, or the ALT TLD should be delegated to new style
AS112 nameservers. (TODO(WK): WK, JA, BD to revive AS112 /
AS112-bis).
New-style AS112
On 3 Mar 2014, at 18:46, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
i know of code that's in widespread use which assumes that TC=1 means that
the last non-empty section was damaged but that it is safe to cache anything
found in earlier sections. this code is clearly wrong-headed, but as i said,
Just a two remarks or highlights about the presentation:
- Data confidentiality can also be used in the resolver scenario the same
way as zone transfer scenario that is explained during presentation as an
example scenario.
- The proof of concept or implementation in NL Net labs is only available
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
On 3 Mar 2014, at 14:19, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
3. The root zone nameservers should either return NXDOMAIN
responses, or the ALT TLD should be delegated to new style
AS112 nameservers.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
On 3 Mar 2014, at 14:19, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
3. The root zone nameservers should either return NXDOMAIN
responses, or the
I have not reviewed all these drafts thoroughly, since I am a slacker, and so
what follows is mainly a reaction to presentations and not a detailed reading
of the text. So, in no particular order (hence numbering):
8. draft-hzhwm-start-tls-for-dns-00, TO not protected
It seems like a potential
On 4 Mar 2014, at 15:17, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
Let's figure out what the right answers are, and then figure out how
(and if) we get there from here.
I realise I have my broken record hat on, but the only problem that reserving
ALT solves is avoiding collision with an ALT TLD
DNSop folks,
If we created a new session in the thursday evening 18:40-20:40 slot to
accommodate expanded discussion of the Drafts discussed during DNSE and
deconflicted that discussion with UTA on friday morning would that be a
significant imposition? it seems unlikely that more than a 1/3 of
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
DNSop folks,
If we created a new session in the thursday evening 18:40-20:40 slot to
accommodate expanded discussion of the Drafts discussed during DNSE and
deconflicted that discussion with UTA on friday morning would that be a
On 3/4/14, 8:13 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
mailto:joe...@bogus.com wrote:
DNSop folks,
If we created a new session in the thursday evening 18:40-20:40
slot to accommodate expanded discussion of the Drafts discussed
Hi Carsten,
Thanks a lot for your comments. Please find my answer as follows
11.1 Generation of secret key (Page 17)
It is possible to use the current DNSKEY RR (RFC 3757) to send the
public key of the DNS server.
My understanding of the DNSKEY RR is that (at least in the context of
A new session Thursday evening is good for the starttls presenter.
Allison
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/4/14, 8:13 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
DNSop folks,
If we created a new
I could make that.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 08:00:53PM +, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
DNSop folks,
If we created a new session in the thursday evening 18:40-20:40 slot to
accommodate expanded discussion of the Drafts discussed during DNSE and
deconflicted that discussion with UTA on friday
At Tue, 04 Mar 2014 21:52:53 +,
Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote:
If we created a new session in the thursday evening 18:40-20:40
slot to accommodate expanded discussion of the Drafts discussed
during DNSE and deconflicted that discussion with UTA on friday
14 matches
Mail list logo
