[DNSOP] Updating draft-muks-dnsop-dnssec-sha3-01

Hi everyone Sometime ago, Jelte and I had submitted SHA-3 variants for existing DNSSEC algorithms along with working code (for BIND and ldns library). At that time, many of the reviewers felt that continuing to include use of RSA signatures (though it was upgraded to the PSS form) in new

Re: [DNSOP] ANAME high-level benefit question

On 5/10/19 03:12, Brian Dickson wrote: Have any "closed system" implementations of non-standard apex-CNAME hacks, committed publicly to neutral ANAME operations, presuming ANAME as currently envisioned? Oracle are happy to see progress on ANAME and intend to support it. I personally have

Re: [DNSOP] Deprecating the status opcode

On 5/16/19 3:23 AM, Petr Špaček wrote: > Notice: This email is from an external sender. > > > > On 15. 05. 19 19:57, Bob Harold wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:00 PM John Levine > > wrote: >> >> In article <064ba295-f3dd-46e4-86a9-e03cf68eb...@sinodun.com >>

Re: [DNSOP] Deprecating the status opcode

> On 16 May 2019, at 12:23, Petr Špaček wrote: > Personally I think it is not worth the effort, it will just add one more > RFC to read and does not help the protocol maintenance. > > I would say that it is better to have one "cleanup" RFC instead of > one-off doc with one useful paragraph in

Re: [DNSOP] Deprecating the status opcode

On Thu, 16 May 2019, Mukund Sivaraman wrote: On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:23:12PM +0200, Petr Špaček wrote: I would say that it is better to have one "cleanup" RFC instead of one-off doc with one useful paragraph in it. With one bigger document we could say to newcommers "this is list of things

Re: [DNSOP] Deprecating the status opcode

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:23:12PM +0200, Petr Špaček wrote: > I would say that it is better to have one "cleanup" RFC instead of > one-off doc with one useful paragraph in it. With one bigger document we > could say to newcommers "this is list of things you can ignore when you > encounter them in

Re: [DNSOP] Deprecating the status opcode

Petr, On 16/05/2019 12.23, Petr Špaček wrote: On 15. 05. 19 19:57, Bob Harold wrote: On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:00 PM John Levine mailto:jo...@taugh.com>> wrote: In article <064ba295-f3dd-46e4-86a9-e03cf68eb...@sinodun.com >

Re: [DNSOP] Deprecating the status opcode

On 16/05/2019 11:23, Petr Špaček wrote: Personally I think it is not worth the effort, it will just add one more RFC to read and does not help the protocol maintenance. I would say that it is better to have one "cleanup" RFC instead of one-off doc with one useful paragraph in it. With one

Re: [DNSOP] Deprecating the status opcode

On 15. 05. 19 19:57, Bob Harold wrote: > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:00 PM John Levine > wrote: > > In article <064ba295-f3dd-46e4-86a9-e03cf68eb...@sinodun.com > > you write: > >-=-=-=-=-=- > > >