On 8/29/2024 9:14 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
Yes, I might *personally* decide to use the IANA TA after the
validUntil if they haven't published a new one. If I did, that would
be entirely my own (bad) decision, and I'm clearly doing something
unsupported… just like if I happen to eat a can of bea
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 6:21 PM, Michael StJohns
wrote:
> On 8/29/2024 4:24 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2024, at 16:46, Warren Kumari
> wrote:
>
> Thank you very much for your comments. We've had some discussions, and the
> authors will be publishing a new version in the next few d
On 8/29/2024 4:24 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 27, 2024, at 16:46, Warren Kumari wrote:
Thank you very much for your comments. We've had some discussions, and the
authors will be publishing a new version in the next few days addressing these.
As you can see, we have turned in -05. We think
On Aug 27, 2024, at 16:46, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> Thank you very much for your comments. We've had some discussions, and the
> authors will be publishing a new version in the next few days addressing
> these.
As you can see, we have turned in -05. We think this deals with the comments
from
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 11:51 AM, Petr Špaček wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
Hi everyone!
Thank you very much for your comments. We've had some discussions, and the
authors will be publishing a new version in the next few days addressing
these.
In addition, I will be deferring the IESG Evaluation
On Aug 21, 2024, at 18:12, Warren Kumari wrote:
> My initial email in this thread said:
>
> The IANA is eagerly awaiting this becoming a standard so that they can update
> their trust anchor with the DNSKEY material - so, if you have any strong
> objections to these changes, please let me know
Hi everyone,
I'm responding only to Paul's reaction to my previous comments. I don't
want discuss IANA operational procedures here so I tried to focus on the
XML and it's consumers.
On 21. 08. 24 0:20, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 10, 2024, at 08:21, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 8/9/2024 5:09 P
Hi Warren -
Inline -
On 8/21/2024 6:12 PM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:28 AM, Edward Lewis
wrote:
On Aug 20, 2024, at 20:42, Michael StJohns mailto:m...@nthpermutation.com>> wrote:
... trimmed ...
But this document is not a pure protocol-defining docume
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:28 AM, Edward Lewis
wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2024, at 20:42, Michael StJohns
> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul -
>
> I'm confused from your responses below - is this a WG document where the
> WG gets to decide, or is this an IANA document (like the one it was
> replacing) where IANA get
Hi Ed -
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. Notes in line.
On 8/21/2024 10:28 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
On Aug 20, 2024, at 20:42, Michael StJohns wrote:
Hi Paul -
I'm confused from your responses below - is this a WG document where the WG
gets to decide, or is this an IANA document (like the one
On Aug 20, 2024, at 20:42, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> Hi Paul -
>
> I'm confused from your responses below - is this a WG document where the WG
> gets to decide, or is this an IANA document (like the one it was replacing)
> where IANA gets to decide? I *think* I saw you argue both ways in you
Hi Paul -
I'm confused from your responses below - is this a WG document where the
WG gets to decide, or is this an IANA document (like the one it was
replacing) where IANA gets to decide? I *think* I saw you argue both
ways in your response below.
I wish I'd seen this during or before the
This is an omnibus reply to the messages on this thread. I believe that the -04
draft is complete, but responses to the replies below may change that. The
draft is currently in Warren's hands, so he gets to decide whether a new draft
is needed for any of those points.
--Paul Hoffman
On Aug 10
Sorry - 1-3 new issues and commentary on the previous issue.
Expanding:
Please Clarify: The document does not state if this set of TAs is
additive to a relying party's existing TA set or replaces them.
Please Clarify: What happens if you provide a TA with a
"validUntil" in the f
Hi Peter - continues below.
On 8/15/2024 5:41 AM, Peter Thomassen wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 8/10/24 17:21, Michael StJohns wrote:
Paul - this is related directly to the newly specified inclusion of
the public key material in this draft (sect 3.2 last para):
A KeyDigest element can contain bot
On 09. 08. 24 20:22, Paul Hoffman wrote:
To everyone who reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis in WG Last Call: please
carefully review the diff. Based on a very good IETF Last Call review from Petr
Špaček, we had to make a significant technical change to the XML format, and we
want to be sure
Hi Mike,
On 8/10/24 17:21, Michael StJohns wrote:
Paul - this is related directly to the newly specified inclusion of the public
key material in this draft (sect 3.2 last para):
A KeyDigest element can contain both a Digest and a publickeyinfo
named pattern. If the Digest element wou
On 10. 08. 24 17:21, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 8/9/2024 5:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 9, 2024, at 12:16, Michael StJohns wrote:
Two comments - one major and one very minor.
Major: I'm sorry for the late comment, but I didn't realize you were planning on
starting to provide prospective
Hi Paul -
Inline
On 8/9/2024 5:09 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 9, 2024, at 12:16, Michael StJohns wrote:
Two comments - one major and one very minor.
Major: I'm sorry for the late comment, but I didn't realize you were planning on
starting to provide prospective DS's for unpublished keys
On Aug 9, 2024, at 12:16, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> Two comments - one major and one very minor.
>
> Major: I'm sorry for the late comment, but I didn't realize you were
> planning on starting to provide prospective DS's for unpublished keys.
> Telling people there's a new trust anchor, and
Two comments - one major and one very minor.
Major: I'm sorry for the late comment, but I didn't realize you were
planning on starting to provide prospective DS's for unpublished keys.
Telling people there's a new trust anchor, and that the live key matches
this file is one thing - easy enou
To everyone who reviewed draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis in WG Last Call: please
carefully review the diff. Based on a very good IETF Last Call review from Petr
Špaček, we had to make a significant technical change to the XML format, and we
want to be sure that it works for everyone. We also updated
22 matches
Mail list logo
