> On 11 Jul 2020, at 02:41, Brian Dickson wrote:
>
> (Apologies for any weird quoting-style/depth issues, mail user agents aren't
> terribly consistent.)
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 8:03 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> > On 10 Jul 2020, at 11:53, Joe Abley wrote:
> >
> > On 9 Jul 2020, at 18
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)'
(draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2845bis-09.txt) as Internet Standard
This document is the product of the Domain Name System Operations Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Robert
On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 23:18, Joe Abley wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2020, at 17:18, Ben Schwartz
> wrote:
>
> This seems like a reasonable idea to me. We should be able to incorporate
> this for the next draft revision.
>
>
> I guess I'll mention that when I suggested MNAME=. to indicate that a zone
> di
On 9 Jul 2020, at 23:02, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>> When you change the purpose of a field you have to consider the existing
>>> users of that field.
>>
>> The only purpose of MNAME today that I am aware of is to identify the target
>> for a DNS UPDATE. If you know of another way that the field i
(Apologies for any weird quoting-style/depth issues, mail user agents
aren't terribly consistent.)
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 8:03 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>
> > On 10 Jul 2020, at 11:53, Joe Abley wrote:
> >
> > On 9 Jul 2020, at 18:48, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
>
> > By that logic, DNS UPDATE chan
This is a minor update of the draft, changing the usage of hmac-sha224 from
"NOT RECOMMENDED" to "MAY", in line with discussions on the list back in May.
Stephen
> On 10 Jul 2020, at 15:52, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
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 : Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)
Authors : Francis Dupont
This errata should be rejected because it changes the decision of the IETF
about the IANA registries. In specific:
> Notes
> -
> The document clearly has the intention to update the IANA registers, which is
> also stated in the document, but not in section 6 ("IANA Considerations").
This is
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020, RFC Errata System wrote:
Subject: [DNSOP] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8624 (6227)
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8624,
"Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC".
Type: Technical
Reported by: Mats Dufberg
Original
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8624,
"Algorithm Implementation Requirements and Usage Guidance for DNSSEC".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6227
--
Type:
10 matches
Mail list logo