Hi, Stephane,
Sorry for the delayed response.
Please find the in-line answers and welcome your further comments:
* the draft gives the impression that it authorizes a new behaviour.
But auth. servers have been sending extra data (IP address of a MX target, for
instance) for years.
#Z.W. Yan:
Hi, Stephane,
Sorry for the delayed response.
Please find the in-line answers and welcome your further comments:
* the draft gives the impression that it authorizes a new behaviour.
But auth. servers have been sending extra data (IP address of a MX target, for
instance) for years.
#Z.W. Yan:
Hi Hosnieh,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
>> > This is not highlighted in the draft which makes it confusing for the
>> > reader which causes to raise such question regarding NAT.
>>
>> Because it is irrelevent has to how the attacker chooses the address to
>> attack.
>
Dear all,
the full recording (synchronized video, audio, slides and jabber room) of the
DNSOP WG session at IETF 93 is available at the following URL:
http://ietf93.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Recorded_Sessions#DNSOP
In case of problems with the playout, just drop an e-mail to
ietf-supp...@meet
Hi,
While I guess most of you are in Prague having discussions about these things,
I hope you won’t mind someone who is unable to attend but who follows your work
on the mailing lists from expressing an opinion...
> On 17 Jul 2015, at 08:39, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> we only need one cutout, some
Dear dnsop working group participants,
We put together a draft with more details about an idea that Mukund
Sivaraman proposed back in December 2014. There are still a number of
wrinkles to be ironed out, but we wanted to get it out for discussion.
Cheers,
--
Shane
Begin forwarded message:
Dat
On 21.7.2015 10:55, Michael StJohns wrote:
> On 7/21/2015 4:32 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
>>> The decision with respect to "clients ... would see some benefit..." has
>>> to be based on what the servers know.
>> Yes, and the information provided
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 11:31:53AM -0400,
Michael StJohns wrote
a message of 41 lines which said:
> I'm actually somewhat opposed to adopting Joe's trustanchor draft- I
> don't think the cost/benefit analysis works.
>
> We already have a set of formats for trust anchors - DNS master file
> DS
