In message <20161125115823.747eb...@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>, Shane Ker
r writes:
> Mark,
>
> At 2016-11-16 08:39:37 +1100
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > In message <20161116000530.19ed4...@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>,
> Shane Kerr writes:
> > > Dan,
> > >
> > > At 2016-11-15 12:41:01 +
Mark,
At 2016-11-16 08:39:37 +1100
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <20161116000530.19ed4...@pallas.home.time-travellers.org>, Shane
> Kerr writes:
> > Dan,
> >
> > At 2016-11-15 12:41:01 +
> > Dan York wrote:
> > > The draft is at either of:
> > >
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
> On Nov 24, 2016, at 01:05, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>
> In section 2.1.1 there is a note on an in 2016 standards non-compliant
> resolver. Having RFCs (to be) note that other RFCs are not safe to assume its
> implemented is a bit ridiculous to me. It is a given that there are bugs, and
> thu
Dan,
I read your draft and I have a concern. The document makes a lot of
observations about the current state of DNSSEC implementation, so I am
afraid that this publication gets outdated quickly.
So I do think it's a good idea to highlight which pieces in the DNS
infrastructure needs attenti
