At 19:03 +0100 7/8/11, Stephen Morris wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I don't want any unnecessary delay. But if it turns
out that what is being addressed is part of a larger problem, it's worth
looking first to see if there is a general solution.
I sent a response to the chairs and to George earl
On 2011-07-08, at 18:23, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> Just let Whois die a peaceful death, it serves no purpose other than make
> work.
Other people are working on the death of whois; I was just trying to clarify
the type of data I was talking about.
Joe
_
On 08/07/2011 5:18 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2011-07-08, at 14:03, Stephen Morris wrote:
If the answer is yes, then the CDS approach is certainly one to be
looked at. The answer also suggests that we should be looking at an
equivalent mechanism for updating NS (and possibly glue) information in
On 2011-07-08, at 14:03, Stephen Morris wrote:
> If the answer is yes, then the CDS approach is certainly one to be
> looked at. The answer also suggests that we should be looking at an
> equivalent mechanism for updating NS (and possibly glue) information in
> the parent zone. Perhaps all can
On 30/06/2011 23:33, George Barwood wrote:
> Is the earlier requirements draft from 2005 (linked above) substantially
> incomplete in some way?
> I think that would be a reasonable basis to measure, I would claim that the
> CDS
> record is capable of satisfying the requirements expressed there i
On Jul 5 2011, George Barwood wrote:
The intent is to restrict the ability to update the parent DS to those who have
access to key signing keys. Thus where there is a split responsibility (similar
to the root zone where IANA has the KSK private key, and Verisign has only the
ZSK private key ), o
On 05/07/2011 3:48 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
On Jun 30 2011, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
[... snip ...]
It would be nice, and make the system more robust. FWIW I think NS can
be automatically maintained after we have DNSSEC by having the parent
copy what the child publishes.
At first sight this
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Thompson"
To: "George Barwood"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] CDS RRtype - automated KSK rollover
> On Jun 12 2011, George Barwood wrote:
>
>>I have updated the draft
>>
>>h
On Jun 12 2011, George Barwood wrote:
I have updated the draft
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-barwood-dnsop-ds-publish-02.txt
I have added an appendix with an exampler KSK rollover, and made
various generally minor changes.
IANA have now assigned type code 59 for the CDS RRtype.
I'd like to re
On Jun 30 2011, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
[... snip ...]
It would be nice, and make the system more robust. FWIW I think NS can
be automatically maintained after we have DNSSEC by having the parent
copy what the child publishes.
At first sight this looks as though it only involves the parent a
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Morris"
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] CDS RRtype - automated KSK rollover
> On 12/06/2011 20:50, George Barwood wrote:
>> I have updated the draft
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-
On 30/06/2011 17:30, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>> So it seems to me that the first step would be to write a draft that
>> defines the problem and the requirements for a solution. (The
>> requirements should include real-world requirements, e.g. how do we
>> assess the potential bypassing of a regis
On 30/06/2011 10:32 AM, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 12/06/2011 20:50, George Barwood wrote:
I have updated the draft
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-barwood-dnsop-ds-publish-02.txt
.
I agree with Ed and think that we before adopting a solution, we
should step back and ask some basic questions s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 30-06-11 16:32, Stephen Morris wrote:
>
> * Does this raise any issues with regards to transferring secure domains
> between registrars?
There isn't any issue transfering secure domains between registrars.
There might only be an issue transfering
On 12/06/2011 20:50, George Barwood wrote:
> I have updated the draft
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-barwood-dnsop-ds-publish-02.txt
>
> I have added an appendix with an exampler KSK rollover, and made
> various generally minor changes.
>
> IANA have now assigned type code 59 for the CDS RRtyp
I have updated the draft
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-barwood-dnsop-ds-publish-02.txt
I have added an appendix with an exampler KSK rollover, and made
various generally minor changes.
IANA have now assigned type code 59 for the CDS RRtype.
I'd like to request that the WG adopt this document.
G
16 matches
Mail list logo
