We had posted an updated draft on the reverse-DNS naming convention for CIDR
address blocks and asked to discuss this at the Atlanta meeting. Did you miss
this request?
- Joe Gersch
On Oct 12, 2012, at 8:32 AM, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 24/09/12 14:18, Stephen Morris wrote:
We'd like to
On 2012-10-12, at 11:20, Joseph Gersch joe.ger...@secure64.com wrote:
We had posted an updated draft on the reverse-DNS naming convention for CIDR
address blocks and asked to discuss this at the Atlanta meeting. Did you
miss this request?
I didn't actually reply, but there are some
On 12/10/12 16:20, Joseph Gersch wrote:
We had posted an updated draft on the reverse-DNS naming
convention for CIDR address blocks and asked to discuss this at the
Atlanta meeting. Did you miss this request? - Joe Gersch
Yes we saw it.
The principal place for discussion is the mailing list,
fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
- Joe
On Oct 12, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 12/10/12 16:20, Joseph Gersch wrote:
We had posted an updated draft on the reverse-DNS naming
convention for CIDR address blocks and asked to discuss this at the
Atlanta meeting. Did
I ran into a corner case where opendnssec and bind showed different
behaviour.
There was a domain that expired that had glue records. These records
got signed after the NS records were removed. A few days later, the
owner restored the domain, making the glue adopted again.
The RRSIGs were not
