On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 1:59 PM Shumon Huque wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 7:46 PM Nick Johnson 40ethereum@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm reading RFC 5155, and I'm a bit puzzled by the requirement for
>> "closest encloser" proofs to prove nonexi
istence?
For example, if I want to prove the nonexistence of a.b.c.example, isn't it
sufficient to validate an NSEC3 record that covers that name and is one
level higher (eg, somehash.b.c.example)? Why do I need to prove the
closest-encloser with a secon
> current time.
>
> That last bullet point tells that if the signature's expiration time is
> smaller than the TTLs received in the response, the RRset is cached for
> at most the duration until the signature expires.
>
> On 7/24/19 7:50 AM, Nick Johnson wrote:
> &
rely
on it to validate other RRSIGs for the entire 3600 seconds?
-Nick Johnson
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:15 PM Bjarni Rúnar Einarsson
wrote:
> The SOA record for a TLD contains two DNS names which should be
> under the control of the NIC: that of the primary master
> nameserver, and the e-mail of the responsible administrator
> (which includes a domain name).
>
This seems
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:12 PM Shane Kerr
wrote:
> Nick,
>
> On 14/06/2019 04.18, Nick Johnson wrote:
> > I'm working on a system that needs to authenticate a TLD owner/operator
> > in order to take specific actions. We had intended to handle this by
> > requir
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 3:02 PM Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Jun 2019, at 23:56, Nick Johnson wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:51 PM Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 13 Jun 2019, at 23:18, Nick Johnson <
>> nick=40ethereum@dmarc.ietf.o
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:51 PM Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>
> On 13 Jun 2019, at 23:18, Nick Johnson
> wrote:
>
> I'm working on a system that needs to authenticate a TLD owner/operator in
> order to take specific actions. We had intended to handle this by requiring
>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:30 PM Joe Abley wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2019, at 22:18, Nick Johnson
> wrote:
>
> > I'm working on a system that needs to authenticate a TLD owner/operator
> in order to take specific actions.
>
> Can you give an example of the actions?
&g
rary messages using their keys.
Are there domains that are globally reserved for the operator across all
TLDs? If not, does anyone have any recommendations on an alternative
authorisation or authentication mechanism?
-Nick Johnson
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP
Just discovered it lacks RFCs 4035 and 5702 as well. So it's definitely on
the conservative side.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:38 PM Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Nick Johnson wrote:
>
> > No, I left out RFCs only referenced by "obsoletes" metadata.
No, I left out RFCs only referenced by "obsoletes" metadata.
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, 13:11 Paul Wouters, wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 06:37, Nick Johnson wrote:
>
>
> So I threw together a quick script
> <https://gist.github.com/Arachnid/c51b450b0c80eb2
12 matches
Mail list logo
