Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-dupont-dnsop-rfc2845bis

At Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:56:53 -0400, tjw ietf wrote: > This draft was widely accepted in Singapore, and the chairs were waiting for > a revision before starting a call for adoption. That revision took a few > months > but it has been done and DNSOP is ready to start a call for

[DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-dupont-dnsop-rfc2845bis

This draft was widely accepted in Singapore, and the chairs were waiting for a revision before starting a call for adoption. That revision took a few months but it has been done and DNSOP is ready to start a call for adoption. This draft addresess the bug found in the existing RFC. This starts a

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-muks-dnsop-dns-squash-01.txt

Tony Finch wrote: To be truly pedantic it should mention that some protocols (mail at least) forbid a trailing dot :-) agree. no :-). -- P Vixie ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] DNSSEC localized validation

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:32:18AM +0100, Tony Finch wrote: > Before the root zone was signed, [isc.org](https://www.isc.org) > created a mechanism called "DNSSEC lookaside validation", which > allowed "islands of trust" to publish their trust anchors in a special > `dlv.isc.org` zone, in a way

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-muks-dnsop-dns-squash-01.txt

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:11 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: > > > > Having said that, even RFC 1034 admits that the non-dot-terminated form > > “is often one where the trailing dot has been omitted to save typing”, > > so if the

[DNSOP] DNSSEC localized validation

I posted the following on my blog yesterday evening, but I'm posting a tweaked copy here since this WG is the main target audience. In order to improve the robustness of Cambridge's DNSSEC setup, I want a revamped, localized DLV to act as an enterprise trust anchor distribution mechanism.

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-muks-dnsop-dns-squash-01.txt

Darcy Kevin (FCA) wrote: > > Having said that, even RFC 1034 admits that the non-dot-terminated form > “is often one where the trailing dot has been omitted to save typing”, > so if the document wants to give a nod to how DNS names are typically > represented in