Re: [DNSOP] 5011-security-considerations and the safetyMargin

2017-11-20 Thread Michael StJohns
On 11/20/2017 11:26 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote: Michael StJohns writes: 1 something. I think that the consensus is clearly something like that. Are you (MSJ) interested in supplying a suggested final equation for it? Ok - after thinking about it, it turns out to be fairly simple. 1) Initial

Re: [DNSOP] 5011-security-considerations and the safetyMargin

2017-11-20 Thread Michael StJohns
I’m running the math right now to see what works. Give me a few days. Mike On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:26 Wes Hardaker wrote: > Michael StJohns writes: > > > 1 something. > > I think that the consensus is clearly something like that. Are you > (MSJ) interested in supplying a suggested final eq

Re: [DNSOP] 5011-security-considerations and the safetyMargin

2017-11-20 Thread Wes Hardaker
Michael StJohns writes: > 1 something. I think that the consensus is clearly something like that. Are you (MSJ) interested in supplying a suggested final equation for it? -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.iet

Re: [DNSOP] Error handling in CAA

2017-11-20 Thread Tony Finch
Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:49:33PM -0800, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote: This is a topic of operational interest to me :-) I previously posted about CAA checks and private domains at: https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2017-September/016752.html Our CA ha

[DNSOP] FOSDEM 2018 DNS devroom CfP

2017-11-20 Thread Peter van Dijk
Hello DNS-enthusiasts and other developers, (the text below has also been posted at https://blog.powerdns.com/2017/11/20/fosdem-2018-dns-devroom-cfp/ and if anything changes, we'll update that post, so please check there if you have questions. Also, our apologies if you receive multiple copies

Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

2017-11-20 Thread Shane Kerr
All, Paul Hoffman: > > On 16 Nov 2017, at 20:12, Lee Howard wrote: > >> I updated this draft months ago, based on feedback from the previous >> WGLC, >> and it expired without comment. I’ve refreshed it, and would like to ask >> again for reviews (especially if anything has changed in the past >