On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 11:33:54AM +1000,
Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
A NXDOMAIN response if cyptographically proved with DNSSEC.
There are two possibilities:
1) I understand nothing to DNSSEC (this is quite possible, giving my
experience
On Sep 3, 2008, at 8:13 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 11:33:54AM +1000,
Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
A NXDOMAIN response if cyptographically proved with DNSSEC.
2) You are playing with words.
The domain example.org
Dean,
I'm not going to argue this point by point with you, I simply
provided data points on what folks who do this as part of their
day job have observed and reported. You can choose to
accept this, or not.
As for bots and CCs and what's done in practice today
and what's not, well, I know a
On Sep 3, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Dean Anderson wrote:
I choose to report on why this data is not credible and should not be
accepted by the DNSOP WG.
I believe the WG has heard your position:
There has been no further discussion of these attacks since the
two very small motivating attacks were
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Danny McPherson) writes:
Dean, I'm not going to argue this point by point with you, ...
how long is this community going to let a single person dominate its agenda?
i'm using kill-by-thread on dnsop now. i have no idea how much i'm missing
of what's being posted, but what i
the un-answered argument wins
only if it's never answered. that would cross the line.
answering it every day for the rest of all of our lives crosses the other line.
(not responding publically to the personal parts of what bill said to me.)
Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Danny McPherson) writes:
Dean, I'm not going to argue this point by point with you, ...
how long is this community going to let a single person dominate its agenda?
+1
The benefit of an open process is its ability to obtain unexpected input that
is
