Based on feedback yesterday on the list, I did a quick –04 update, which is now
at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-livingood-negative-trust-anchors/.
The are seven open issues documented at the end of the I-D. But the most
important questions for this WG are:
1 – Is this worth considerat
On Feb 17, 2013, at 10:22 AM, "Livingood, Jason"
wrote:
> 1 – Is this worth consideration as a WG I-D or should it continue only as an
> individual I-D?
Yes, wg i-d.
> 2 – If the answer to #1 is that it should be a WG I-D, would you like a brief
> discussion of the open issues at IETF 86?
No
On 17/02/2013 10:22, Livingood, Jason wrote:
Based on feedback yesterday on the list, I did a quick –04 update, which
is now at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-livingood-negative-trust-anchors/.
The are seven open issues documented at the end of the I-D. But the most
important questions
Jason,
On 17/02/2013 10:22, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>> Based on feedback yesterday on the list, I did a quick –04 update
Personally I would also have changed all references to RFC4641 into RFC6781.
Regards,
--
Marco
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf
On Feb 17, 2013, at 10:22 AM, "Livingood, Jason"
wrote:
> Based on feedback yesterday on the list, I did a quick –04 update, which is
> now at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-livingood-negative-trust-anchors/.
>
>
> The are seven open issues documented at the end of the I-D. But t
Thanks for catching that - will correct this in -05.
Jason
On 2/18/13 10:57 AM, "Marco Davids (SIDN)" wrote:
>Jason,
>
>On 17/02/2013 10:22, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>>> Based on feedback yesterday on the list, I did a quick 04 update
>
>Personally I would also have changed all references to RF
Jason, in section 10 you talk about possible early removal the NTA when
validation succeeds but there may be instances where validation succeeds
when using a sub-set of the authoritative servers thus NTA should only
be removed if all servers are providing "good" signatures.
Furthermore what to
In message <51228dfb.3070...@ogud.com>, Olafur Gudmundsson writes:
> Jason, in section 10 you talk about possible early removal the NTA when
> validation succeeds but there may be instances where validation succeeds
> when using a sub-set of the authoritative servers thus NTA should only
> be r
Regardless of
whether my comment makes sense, I do this this is a useful draft to have.
-Rick
From: dnsop-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Livingood, Jason
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 7:22 AM
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: [DNSOP] New draft-livingood-nega
On 2013-02-20, at 14:50, Richard Lamb wrote:
> FWIW: The -04 draft looks good. It is clear and well written and I think it
> is a valuable resource.
> As I am late to looking at this draft please take this only as a comment from
> a narrow minded engineer ;-) After the rationale, explanati
On 2/20/13 1:50 PM, "Richard Lamb"
mailto:richard.l...@icann.org>> wrote:
As I am late to looking at this draft please take this only as a comment from a
narrow minded engineer ;-) After the rationale, explanations and caveats I
kept looking for how to implement a NTA. After initially thinkin
On 2/18/13 3:24 PM, "Olafur Gudmundsson" wrote:
>Jason, in section 10 you talk about possible early removal the NTA when
>validation succeeds but there may be instances where validation succeeds
>when using a sub-set of the authoritative servers thus NTA should only
>be removed if all servers ar
On 2/20/13 1:52 PM, "Joe Abley" wrote:
>
>On 2013-02-20, at 14:50, Richard Lamb wrote:
>
>> FWIW: The -04 draft looks good. It is clear and well written and I
>>think it is a valuable resource.
>> As I am late to looking at this draft please take this only as a
>>comment from a narrow minded e
On 2/18/13 4:56 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>In message <51228dfb.3070...@ogud.com>, Olafur Gudmundsson writes:
>> Jason, in section 10 you talk about possible early removal the NTA when
>>validation succeeds but there may be instances where validation succeeds
>>when using a sub-set of the authori
14 matches
Mail list logo
