Just a reminder that the WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
will end later today (barring any stuck issues). The authors appear to
have addressed all open issues (except JINMEI's last comments). Please
read the current version here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dn
On 10/5/16 2:30 PM, 神明達哉 wrote:
At Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:39:55 -0400,
Warren Kumari wrote:
- Section 3: this section also has an issue of "recursive resolver".
Although it may not be as critical as other part of the draft since
it's only used as an example scenario, it's probably better to
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.
Title : Signaling Trust Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security
Extensions (DNSSEC)
Authors : Duane Wessels
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 3:22 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >Yup, my view (as can probably be guessed!) is that doing this for
> >negative answers is the important bit, and that wildcard synthesis was
> >easy to add while we had the hood open (see "shipwright's disease",
> >which I suffer from greatly[0
At Tue, 4 Oct 2016 17:39:55 -0400,
Warren Kumari wrote:
> > - Section 3: this section also has an issue of "recursive resolver".
> > Although it may not be as critical as other part of the draft since
> > it's only used as an example scenario, it's probably better to not
> > limit the role
On 04-10-16 18:34, 神明達哉 wrote:
At Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:06:54 +0200,
Matthijs Mekking wrote:
2. In addition to the first point, I don't think it is appropriate to
use RFC 2119 keywords to dictate name server configuration. Mentioning
it would be useful to have configuration options for enabling a
