>> But then I have a related question: why is this document supposed to
>> be an Experimental RFC, rather than a Proposed Standard? I originally
>> thought it was because the spec is going to be standardized against
>> the 'design principle' as a special exception.
>
> At this point, I don't reme
> On 12 Jul 2006 09:10:26 -0500,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> In some sense, your point is true. However, in order to provide the DNS
> resolution service for the globally roaming hosts which is away from its
> home network, I believe that the TSIG-based approach is a good candidate.
>
Tatuya,
Hmm...I cannot find background information about the "design
principle" on the net, either. It may be just an misunderstanding of
mine, in which case, yes, the above concern is resolved (I might then
propose a DHCPv6 server address RA option:-).
Feel free :-)
But then I have a relat
Hi Jinmei,
-Original Message- From: JINMEI Tatuya /
神明達哉 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 4:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Last Call:
'IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS Configuratio
> On 30 Jun 2006 09:36:59 -0500,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I agree with you at the security issue related to "S flag" for the open
> RDNSS service. So I would like to add the following text to the next
> version of my draft:
(snip)
> 7. Security Considerations
>...
>When t
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 13:18:06 -0700,
> Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> So,
>> + I'd first like to confirm whether my understanding about the
>> 'design principle' is correct. If it's wrong, then I'm fine and
>> this concern will be resolved.
> I don't remember any ND design prin
Tatuya,
On Jun 29, 2006, at 9:52 PM, ext JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
Resending to the list with the source address that appears to be
expected (the original message seems to have been filtered)...
This time I'm also copying the ipv6 list. In fact, [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be
more suitable plac
action Authentication for DNS (TSIG)",
RFC 2845, May 2000.
---
Thanks.
Paul
-Original Message- From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 2:01 AM To: JINMEI Tatuya Cc: ipv6@ietf.org;
iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Last Call: 'I
On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, JINMEI Tatuya / ¿ÀÌÀãºÈ wrote:
This time I'm also copying the ipv6 list. In fact, [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be
more suitable place for discussions on this proposal, since it's an
extension to ND.
...
Disclaimer: router-side support for this has been added (as it was
contri
Resending to the list with the source address that appears to be
expected (the original message seems to have been filtered)...
This time I'm also copying the ipv6 list. In fact, [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be
more suitable place for discussions on this proposal, since it's an
extension to ND.
10 matches
Mail list logo
