Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements

2023-05-12 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 03:21:27PM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote: > This starts a Working Group Last Call for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements > > Current versions of the draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-validator-requirements/ > > T

Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re: [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition]

2023-05-12 Thread Edward Lewis
On 5/11/23, 7:30 PM, "DNSOP on behalf of Mark Andrews" wrote: > >It’s not a challenge to track what is lame. It’s dead simple. You just > have to look. Getting >it addressed is the challenge. Speaking from experience (which means I'm about to launch an amplification attack here: taki

Re: [DNSOP] Delegation acceptance checks [was: Re: [Ext] WGLC rfc8499bis one week extension for lame delegation definition]

2023-05-12 Thread John R Levine
Yeah, that's a better way to put it. But the main point still stands, that it would be a signficant operational change to insist that all delegated NS be active when delegated, and even moreso to insist that they continue to be active. ... Well, OK, you do that, half the emails bounce, half of