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 : Guidance for NSEC3 parameter settings
Authors : Wes Hardaker
Viktor D
Paul Wouters writes:
> I didn’t see in this email whether an Update: clause will be added ?
There will be an update clause, yes.
Current headers:
Network Working GroupW. Hardaker
Internet-Draft USC/ISI
Up
Thanks for the changes Wes. Looks good to me.
I didn’t see in this email whether an Update: clause will be added ? Perhaps
this was discussed elsewhere ?
Paul
Sent using a virtual keyboard on a phone
> On May 24, 2022, at 12:58, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>
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 : Service binding and parameter specification via the
DNS (DNS SVCB and HTTPS RRs)
Authors : Ben
Paul Wouters via Datatracker writes:
Hi Paul,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but thank you for the
comprehensive review.
> Good document, nice to see operations feedback back into the IETF via a new
> BCP.
>
> comments:
>
> The algorithm field is not discussed by this docum
Alvaro Retana via Datatracker writes:
> Should this document formally Update RFC5155? Besides providing "guidance on
> setting NSEC3 parameters", there is also Normative language that seems similar
> to what is in rfc5155, but not the same. For example:
>
> In §3.2 this document says:
>
>
Francesca Palombini via Datatracker writes:
Hi Francesca,
> Before reading Alvaro's comment, I was going to bring up that the following
> paragraph in Section 3.2 could be confusing for a reader who is aware of the
> "Updates" RFC header.
>
>Note that this specification updates [RFC5155] by
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker writes:
> ** I support Paul Wouter’s DISCUSS position. Like Alvaro and Francesca also
> commented, this document appears to be changing the behavior of RFC5155. It
> should formally update it in the meta data. Specifically:
As discussed in other threads, the next
Hi Andrew,
Sorry for the delay.
Andrew Alston via Datatracker writes:
> I've been sitting trying to work out in my mind if a BCP document should be
> requesting code points - and if I should change the position from a no
> objection to a discuss - and the more I think about this - I feel that a
Paul Hoffman writes:
> > However, I noticed that three of the RFCs listed in the draft are
> > from 202x, and likely more will have to be added in the future. That
> > made me wonder:
> >
> > How do we update this collection?
>
> That's an excellent question! The likely, not-excellent answer is
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 : DNSSEC automation
Authors : Ulrich Wisser
Shumon Huque
Filena
11 matches
Mail list logo
