On 1/14/2010 8:11 AM, Evan Hunt wrote:
>>> We hear you. Expect a decision in the next few days.
>>
>> So, has the decision been made?
>>
>> [I am tentatively planning on going to 9.7 in production round about Easter,
>> in good time for the RSASHA256-signed root zone in July, but it would be
>> ni
> >We hear you. Expect a decision in the next few days.
>
> So, has the decision been made?
>
> [I am tentatively planning on going to 9.7 in production round about Easter,
> in good time for the RSASHA256-signed root zone in July, but it would be
> nice to have a fall-back option.]
I'm sorry,
On Dec 15 2009, Evan Hunt wrote:
(Doug Barton wrote)
BIND 9.6.2 is in the "b1" phase atm, which means that there is plenty
of time to get SHA2 in there and get the release out before a signed
root goes live. I encourage the folks at ISC to do so, and if you
agree I encourage you to make your vo
In message , Chris Tho
mpson writes:
> (But it's not too obvious to me that adding support for a new signing
> algorithm should necessarily be considered a "major functional change".)
If it was *just* adding a new signing algorithm then yes it would be a minor
change. A lot more happened under t
> BIND 9.6.2 is in the "b1" phase atm, which means that there is plenty
> of time to get SHA2 in there and get the release out before a signed
> root goes live. I encourage the folks at ISC to do so, and if you
> agree I encourage you to make your voice heard.
We hear you. Expect a decision in th
Evan Hunt wrote:
>> BIND 9.6.2 is in the "b1" phase atm, which means that there is plenty
>> of time to get SHA2 in there and get the release out before a signed
>> root goes live. I encourage the folks at ISC to do so, and if you
>> agree I encourage you to make your voice heard.
>
> We hear you.
Chris Thompson wrote:
> (Evan Hunt)
>> Adding SHA-2 to 9.6.x would violate our policy of making major
>> functional changes only in major releases, so I don't expect we'll
>> do that. Given the odd circumstances you mentioned, I won't say for
>> certain that we won't--but I doubt it.
>>
>> 9.7.0 i
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 08:05:40PM -0800,
Doug Barton wrote
a message of 44 lines which said:
> While this reminder is timely and helpful, more welcome would be the
> news that BIND 9.6.2 is going to have actual support for
> RSASHA{256|512}.
No, it won't. Migrating to >= 9.6.1 is necessary t
On Dec 15 2009, Doug Barton wrote:
While this reminder is timely and helpful, more welcome would be the
news that BIND 9.6.2 is going to have actual support for
RSASHA{256|512}. My cursory reading of the 9.6.2b1 code does not seem
to indicate that it does, although I would be happy to be proven
While this reminder is timely and helpful, more welcome would be the
news that BIND 9.6.2 is going to have actual support for
RSASHA{256|512}. My cursory reading of the 9.6.2b1 code does not seem
to indicate that it does, although I would be happy to be proven wrong.
I personally don't think it's
With upcoming deployment of RSASHA256 to sign the root zone, ISC
would like to remind BIND 9.6.0 and BIND 9.6.0-P1 users that use
DLV, but have not yet upgraded, that they will need to upgrade to
a more recent version of BIND 9.6.x as BIND 9.6.0 and BIND 9.6.0-P1
will not correctly handle RSASHA25
11 matches
Mail list logo
