On 8/11/22 07:35, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Robert Moskowitz writes:
So I think the correct example should be:
foo.example.com IN IPSECKEY
(10 0 4 . 3WTXgUvpn1RlCXnm80gGY2LZ/ErUUEZtZ33IDi8yfhM= )
I will fix my example. Do you think I should have both examples: with and
Robert Moskowitz writes:
> So I think the correct example should be:
>
> foo.example.com IN IPSECKEY
> (10 0 4 . 3WTXgUvpn1RlCXnm80gGY2LZ/ErUUEZtZ33IDi8yfhM= )
>
> I will fix my example. Do you think I should have both examples: with and
> without gateway?
More examples is
On 8/10/22 16:45, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Aug 10, 2022, at 16:07, Robert Moskowitz
wrote:
On 8/10/22 16:04, Paul Wouters wrote:
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I think I could have the IANA Considerations have a fix for 1 - 3 as
well as add 4.
Please do. I talked to IANA and they agreed th
> On Aug 10, 2022, at 16:07, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 8/10/22 16:04, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>> Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>>
I think I could have the IANA Considerations have a fix for 1 - 3 as
well as add 4.
>> Please do. I talked to IANA and they agreed this was the eas
On 8/10/22 16:04, Paul Wouters wrote:
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I think I could have the IANA Considerations have a fix for 1 - 3 as
well as add 4.
Please do. I talked to IANA and they agreed this was the easiest solution.
Should it be:
* public key
* Public key
* Public Key
??
>
> Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>> I think I could have the IANA Considerations have a fix for 1 - 3 as
>> well as add 4.
Please do. I talked to IANA and they agreed this was the easiest solution.
Paul
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>> I think it should have public and an errata could be filed for 1-3 ?
>> Or we can draft a separate draft for encoding algo 14 (digital
>> signatures) that also fixes up these entries ?
>>
>> Or this draft could fix them ? Maybe the chairs or AD could
Paul Wouters wrote:
>> On Aug 10, 2022, at 10:30, Robert Moskowitz
>> wrote:
>>
>> I will fix my example. Do you think I should have both examples: with
>> and without gateway?
> No. First because you are not tunneling and it doesn’t apply to you and
> second becaus
Paul,
On 8/10/22 11:09, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Aug 10, 2022, at 10:30, Robert Moskowitz
wrote:
I will fix my example. Do you think I should have both examples:
with and without gateway?
No. First because you are not tunneling and it doesn’t apply to you
and second because it can only
> On Aug 10, 2022, at 10:30, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
> I will fix my example. Do you think I should have both examples: with and
> without gateway?
No. First because you are not tunneling and it doesn’t apply to you and second
because it can only be set for IPSECKEY records in the reverse
Tero,
Thanks for the review.
On 8/9/22 11:46, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Robert Moskowitz writes:
This latest ver is in response to comments recieved.
Please review Appendix A that I have the RR properly set up.
I think the priority needs to be in decimal, and you are missing the
gateway address. I
Robert Moskowitz writes:
> This latest ver is in response to comments recieved.
>
> Please review Appendix A that I have the RR properly set up.
I think the priority needs to be in decimal, and you are missing the
gateway address. I.e., at least the 4025 has examples as follows:
38.2.0.192.in-ad
This latest ver is in response to comments recieved.
Please review Appendix A that I have the RR properly set up.
I also have questions about the text added to specify this is for public
key lookup. Please review how I have said this in the draft.
Also the text for use in the IPSECKEY regist
13 matches
Mail list logo
