Dear DNSOP,
This revision
- addresses editorial feedback from Secdir review (circulated on this list
earlier);
- improves the description of RFC updates, as suggested by Tim in his WGLC
message;
- fixes a nit in the abstract which Tim had found.
Thanks,
Nils & Peter
On 10/2/23 23:56,
On 9/19/23 21:48, Tim Wicinski wrote:
This Document will update 7344 and 8078 if approved.
The Document updates brings up something I wanted to raise.
Peter and I chatted about some simple nits (remove references from the
abstract),
but I wasn't sure if the sections updating older documents
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-bootstrapping-06.txt is now available.
It is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF.
Title: Automatic DNSSEC Bootstrapping using Authenticated Signals from the
Zone's Operator
Authors: Peter Thomassen
Tim Wicinski has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-04 as
Informational on behalf of the DNSOP working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion/
___
DNSOP mailing
Dear DNSOP,
This revision has changes in response to David Blacka's Dnsdir review.
Changelog:
* Clean up "multi-homing" and define "multi-provider"/"multi-signer"
* Clarify that existing CSYNC NS and glue processing rules remain in place
* Minor editorial changes
Thanks,
Peter
On
Hi David,
I've merged the below changes into the draft, now available on the datatracker
as -04.
Thanks,
Peter
On 9/7/23 18:52, Peter Thomassen wrote:
Hi David,
First of all, thanks for the review!
The changes made in response to it (plus a few minor editorial changes I found
useful) are
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dnsop-cds-consistency-04.txt is now available. It is
a work item of the Domain Name System Operations (DNSOP) WG of the IETF.
Title: Consistency for CDS/CDNSKEY and CSYNC is Mandatory
Author: Peter Thomassen
Name:draft-ietf-dnsop-cds-consistency-04.txt
On 29. 09. 23 9:15, Peter van Dijk wrote:
On Tue, 2023-09-19 at 14:27 -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:
In the case of the DF bit, the wording is changed from
"UDP responders are RECOMMENDED" to "UDP responders MAY"
With this change, the document appears to in fact document Best Current
Practice.
Op 2 okt 2023 om 11:04 heeft libor.peltan het volgende
geschreven:
> I would even rather see a recommendation that firewalls and middleboxes
> don't do any kind of DNS packet handling. Why should they? DNS traffic is for
> DNS servers and they are the most capable entity for handling them,
I would even rather see a recommendation that firewalls and middleboxes
don't do any kind of DNS packet handling. Why should they? DNS traffic
is for DNS servers and they are the most capable entity for handling
them, including FORMERR responses on wrongly formatted queries.
Libor
Dne 29.
I see nothing wrong with the current version (-15), and as I posted
before, I consider it a nice reference for DNS fragmentation.
(I'm a bit late, but at least for the record.)
--Vladimir
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
11 matches
Mail list logo
