A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Domain Name System
Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF.
Title : Using Service Bindings with DANE
Authors : Benjamin M. Schwartz
Edward Lewis wrote:
> I’ve just come across this message (I have been out a bit recently)…sorry is
> this is late.
>
> These are suggestions…
>
> For the situation where a (an active) nameserver is not configured to answer a
> query it received (which is the case where my use of lame delegation
It appears that Peter Thomassen said:
>Hi John,
>
>On 6/20/23 20:27, John Levine wrote:
>> It appears that Peter Thomassen said:
>Do you mean that there needs to be a way for registrars to tell a registry
>what their NOTIFY listening endpoint is?
>
>EPP, to my knowledge, is for management of
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Domain Name System
Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF.
Title : Negative Caching of DNS Resolution Failures
Authors : Duane Wessels
Dear WG,
This is a Call for Agenda Items for the IETF 117 in San Francisco,
California.
Please email the chairs with your requests. *Or*
drop us a pull request
https://github.com/ietf-wg-dnsop/wg-materials/tree/main/dnsop-ietf117
look for dnsop-ietf117-agenda-requests.md.
Please Note:
Hi Matthijs,
On 6/20/23 07:30, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
From the draft:
For example, a single provider may (accidentally or
maliciously) cause another provider's trust anchors and/or
nameservers to be removed from the delegation.
This is exactly what happened in my test
All
This starts a Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures
Current versions of the draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-caching-resolution-failures/
The Current Intended Status of this document is: Proposed
Standard/Standards
Ben
Thanks for this, this will help the chairs. What we would like to hear
from is perhaps one of the many folks who have done operational work with
DANE and can add any comments.
thanks
tim
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 9:46 AM Ben Schwartz wrote:
> I wanted to remind DNSOP to take another look
Dear colleagues,
Several weeks ago we opened a WGLC on draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion. There was
not a huge volume of response, but what we heard was strongly positive. The
chairs see consensus to move this document on to publication.
Thanks to everyone who worked on the draft and commented in
All
The call for adoption period for this draft wrapped up this morning. While
we saw several strong comments and issues raised, we also saw the working
group wishing to adopt this work and working on it. We consider this
passed. Thanks all, and we will work with the authors to itemize the list
I wanted to remind DNSOP to take another look at draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-dane
[1], which is intended as a straightforward clarification of how DANE interacts
with SVCB/HTTPS records (and QUIC/HTTP/3). I don't think this document is
controversial, and I'd like to proceed to WGLC soon.
Thanks,
On Jun 20, 2023, at 16:40, Dick Franks wrote:
>
>
> WGLC is supposed to be a review, nit-picking and clarification process.
A “review” can have results requiring major changes. But your use here seems to
imply “only small changes”. This is incorrect.
Documents in WGLC could be found to
Hi John,
On 6/20/23 20:27, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Peter Thomassen said:
My take is that the parent should create a _signal subdomain (preferably as a
delegation). The per-child target can be queried by prepending, e.g.
_notify.example._signal.parent. IN NOTIFY CDS scheme
13 matches
Mail list logo
