On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:19 AM, Peter Koch wrote:
> Andrew,
>
>> In the archives since the meeting, I observe some comments at
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg09783.html. But
>> I do not observe the announcement of a WGLC. I am wondering when we
>> might expect that call.
Andrew,
> In the archives since the meeting, I observe some comments at
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg09783.html. But
> I do not observe the announcement of a WGLC. I am wondering when we
> might expect that call.
both chairs have taken advantage of the season at least
On 08/20/2012 01:50 PM, John Dickinson wrote:
> We could rearrange the table to tidy up the description of the
> Double-Signature method but keep the existing names. Would that
> help?
Yes, making a clearer distinction between ZSK Double-Signature and KSK
Double-Signature would help a bit.
//yu
John, all,
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:50:55PM +0100, John Dickinson wrote:
> > Saying this does not count as a 'standby key' is confusing in the
> > light that the term key is used rather loosely. Also this text
> > insinuates that it is somehow worse than having a "Double-Signature
> > standby k
Yuri,
Thanks for the feedback.
On 14 Aug 2012, at 09:54, Yuri Schaeffer wrote:
> I reviewed the "DNSSEC Key Timing Considerations
> draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-03.txt" document rather extensively
> with emphasis on verifying correctness of the rollover timelines. I
> believe these are co
