On 5 Oct 2013, at 19:55, Warren Kumari wrote:
> So, would like to get some feedback on this version -- I understand that it
> might not please everyone, such is the nature of compromise.
>
> W
>
> Filename: draft-kumari-ogud-dnsop-cds
> Revision: 05
Section 2.2.1
"The proposal
b
In message , Paul Wouters wr
ites:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2013, Ondej Sur wrote:
>
> > We also have a signaling mechanism...
> >
> > We can just somewhat abuse the DNS Update mechanism to send DNS UPDATE
> > to parent master (from SOA) server with DNSKEYs + RRSIGs as contents
> > of the DNS UPDATE messa
On Wed, 9 Oct 2013, Ondřej Surý wrote:
We also have a signaling mechanism...
We can just somewhat abuse the DNS Update mechanism to send DNS UPDATE
to parent master (from SOA) server with DNSKEYs + RRSIGs as contents
of the DNS UPDATE message.
Some TLD operators I talked to did not want UPDAT
On Oct 9, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Billy Glynn wrote:
>
> On 5 Oct 2013, at 19:55, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>> So, would like to get some feedback on this version -- I understand that it
>> might not please everyone, such is the nature of compromise.
>>
>> W
>>
>> Filename: draft-kumari-ogud-dns
On 8. 10. 2013, at 22:33, Doug Barton wrote:
>> the *registrar* will fetch the CDS / CDNSKEY and will
>> push the updated records into the *registry* through existing
>> mechanisms (like EPP).
>
> Right, so instead of convincing hundreds of registries you're going to
> convince thousands of re
On 8. 10. 2013, at 20:13, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> What's actually missing is a signaling mechanism from the child to the
>> parent.
>
> Google for "timers versus triggers". We had that discussion years ago.
> It ended up in a stalemate and we continue
[I have too many unread emails in dnsop, so excuse me if I am repeating what
was said earlier.]
On 4. 10. 2013, at 15:31, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> Matthijs and Paul
> I insisted on renaming the CDS to CTA in the last version just so we can
> clearly talk about options.
>
> Strictly speaki
