Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-dnsop-rfc8624-bis, must-not-sha1, must-not-ecc-gost

On Apr 27, 2024, at 17:38, Tim Wicinski wrote: > Please review these drafts to see if you think they are suitable for adoption > by DNSOP, and send any comments to the list, clearly stating your view. The WG already has many important DNSSEC-related documents that are not getting enough

[DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-heard-dnsop-udp-opt-large-dns-responses-00.txt

Greetings, TSVWG currently has the document "Transport Options for UDP" ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options) in Working Group Last Call. It includes a capability to fragment datagrams at the UDP layer rather than the IP layer, and one of the use cases that has

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-dnsop-rfc8624-bis, must-not-sha1, must-not-ecc-gost

On Apr 27, 2024, at 20:39, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > M > > > This starts a Call for Adoption for: > draft-hardaker-dnsop-rfc8624-bis > draft-hardaker-dnsop-must-not-sha1 > draft-hardaker-dnsop-must-not-ecc-gost I support adoption for all three drafts. Willing to help with text and

[DNSOP] Weekly github digest (DNSOP Working Group GitHub Activity Summary)

Issues -- * ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-domain-verification-techniques (+0/-0/1) 1 issues received 1 new comments: - #69 Multi-provider / multi-CDN setups (1 by moonshiner) https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/draft-ietf-dnsop-domain-verification-techniques/issues/69