All
The authors have addressed all the outstanding issues with this draft, and
the chairs feel this is ready for Working Group Last Call.
There has been one issue raised which we feel the working group may have
some opinion on this.
Ondrej Sury raised this point:
There's a small procedural thi
On 11/16/16 10:19 PM, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Ondřej Surý mailto:ondrej.s...@nic.cz>> wrote:
~~~
There's a small procedural thing - the last name of the draft
appears on both datatracker.i.o and tools.i.o. I believe it
would be better to
On 11/25/16 3:59 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
Thank you VERY much - I really appreciate the help.
I merged all the changes, other than those in a17e0f1 (remove
redundant quotes from rfc4035 and recommendation updates) -- this is
because the RFC Editor really wants an "Updates to RFC" section.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Matthijs Mekking
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This document looks almost good to me. I have some nit comments.
>
> - Page 3, Section 1, says a DNS negative cache is used to cache the fact
> that a name does not exist. But it also caches if the name is valid but
> there are no
Mark,
At 2016-11-25 15:45:08 +1100
Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for being stupid and ignorant here, but again, is there an RFC
> > which says you need multiple signatures?
>
> Yes. RFC4035 and RFC6840. Note the words "entire zone". You can't
> have two algorithm is use without multiple
