[DNSOP] Alternate proposal for transport indication in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http

Given the use case in draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-wireformat-http, defining a new media type seems like overkill, particularly given that it will be transporting *the exact same* data as an existing media type. Instead, an optional parameter could be added to the application/dns-udpwireformat

Re: [DNSOP] Phishing? was Fwd: nthpermutation

On 3/25/2018 6:15 PM, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote: Mike, This is a domain extortion attempt, they want you to buy the domain at inflated price https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/56290/is-this-domain-registration-service-email-a-scam#56304 Olafur Thanks! I figured it had to be

Re: [DNSOP] Phishing? was Fwd: nthpermutation

Mike, This is a domain extortion attempt, they want you to buy the domain at inflated price https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/56290/is-this-domain-registration-service-email-a-scam#56304 Olafur On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:04 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: >

[DNSOP] Definition of "trust anchor"

The current text is: "A configured DNSKEY RR or DS RR hash of a DNSKEY RR. A validating security-aware resolver uses this public key or hash as a starting point for building the authentication chain to a signed DNS response." (Quoted from , Section 2) The WG has has a preference for quoting

[DNSOP] help needed adding sections Re: DNS Camel Viewer

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 02:04:02PM -0400, Matthew Pounsett wrote: > I went to go dig into this and in the process of producing a list I found > that the list was longer than I imagined, and that there are more > categories of documents that don't contribute to the camel than I thought. Hi

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf-05.txt

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 WG of the IETF. Title : DNS Scoped Data Through '_Underscore' Naming of Attribute Leaves Author : Dave Crocker

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-00.txt

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018, Evan Hunt wrote: I think it would help if there were more clarity on what exactly is being proposed, other than adding the words "obsolete" or "deprecated" to a list of RRtypes on a website somewhere. The draft didn't seem to have particularly clear guidance to

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-00.txt

On 25 Mar 2018, at 9:05, Evan Hunt wrote: I think it would help if there were more clarity on what exactly is being proposed, other than adding the words "obsolete" or "deprecated" to a list of RRtypes on a website somewhere. The draft didn't seem to have particularly clear guidance to

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-00.txt

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 06:48:35AM -0700, Joe Abley wrote: > I'm actually surprised to see that support for rarely-used RRTypes is > really upsetting the camel. It's an interesting object lesson in the complexity of unloading camels, though. (Perhaps it's time to add something about "the eye of

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-sury-deprecate-obsolete-resource-records-00.txt

> On 24 Mar 2018, at 22:55, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: > > Hi Ondrej > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:20:06PM +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote: >>> It might be a different story if one of those zombie RRtypes required >>> additional processing. None spring to mind though. >> >> But (most of)