Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any

Your English literacy is fine. I believe sentences which are logically connected into one super-sentence have been accidentally severed into one sentence and one non-sentence. That super-sentence would be: "In the case where a zone that contains HINFO RRSets is served from an authority server

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any

>ready for publication since I still believe we should not abuse HINFO >for this purpose ... I have to agree. I have DNS servers that send actual useful HINFO records. If you're going to abuse an existing rrtype, an obvious candidate is NULL (type 10) which has been experimental for 30 years

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any

At Fri, 25 Nov 2016 19:50:48 -0500, tjw ietf wrote: > Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. Also, if someone feels > the document is *not* ready for publication, please speak out with your > reasons. > > *Also*, if you have any opinion on changing the document

[DNSOP] Other comments on draft-york-dnsop-deploying-dnssec-crypto-algs-04

Ref: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-york-dnsop-deploying-dnssec-crypto-algs-04.txt ## Observations on Deploying New DNSSEC Cryptographic Algorithms ## draft-york-dnsop-deploying-dnssec-crypto-algs-04 ## ## Abstract ## ##As new cryptographic algorithms are developed

Re: [DNSOP] Would you please review our draft on deploying new DNSSEC crypto algorithms?

Admittedly having not read past the abstract and responding to Scott's message - Scott is right on a point I think is underplayed. The protocol parameter registry is titled "DNS Security Algorithm Numbers", see: