ilable from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
>
>Title : Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)
>Authors : Francis Dupont
>
: Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)
>Authors : Francis Dupont
> Stephen Morris
> Paul Vixie
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
> Olafur Gudmundsson
>
(TSIG)
>Authors : Francis Dupont
> Stephen Morris
> Paul Vixie
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
> Olafur Gudmundsson
> Brian Wellington
> Filenam
: Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)
>Authors : Francis Dupont
> Stephen Morris
> Paul Vixie
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
> Olafur Gudmundsson
>
ion Authentication for DNS (TSIG)
>Authors : Francis Dupont
> Stephen Morris
> Paul Vixie
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
> Olafur Gudmundsson
>
: Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)
>Authors : Francis Dupont
> Stephen Morris
> Paul Vixie
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
> Olafur Gudmundsson
>
item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
>
>Title : Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)
>Authors : Francis Dupont
> Stephen Morris
> Paul Vixie
>
gt; directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
>
>Title : Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)
>Authors : Francis Dupont
> Stephen Morris
>
rr
<sh...@timetravellers.org>, Stephen Morris <step...@isc.org>
A new version of I-D, draft-muks-dnsop-dns-opportunistic-refresh-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Mukund Sivaraman and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-muks-dnsop-dns-opportunistic-refresh
Revisi
Paul
Thanks for taking the time to go through the draft. Addressing your
comments:
On 23/09/14 04:06, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At the beginning of 2.1: For ZSKs, the issue for the zone
operator/signer is to ensure that any caching validator has access
to a particular signature that corresponds
, Joel Jaeggli
(joe...@bogus.com).
Regards
Stephen Morris
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On 12/10/12 16:20, Joseph Gersch wrote:
We had posted an updated draft on the reverse-DNS naming
convention for CIDR address blocks and asked to discuss this at the
Atlanta meeting. Did you miss this request? - Joe Gersch
Yes we saw it.
The principal place for discussion is the mailing list,
Dear WG
IETF-85 in Atlanta is less than six weeks away. The chairs have
provisionally booked a slot for a working group meeting, but the
question is whether there is enough material for the meeting to be
justified.
We currently see discussion on DNSSEC operator change - this has
arisen in the
Vancouver, Georgia B
Date: Thursday, 02 August 2012
Time: 17:30 - 18:30 (UTC-07:00)
Chairs: Peter Koch p...@denic.de
Stephen Morris step...@isc.org
Jabber Log: http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/dnsop/2012-08-03.html
(Times in brackets are times on the audio record
Subject: Need volunteers for the NomCom
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:22:33 -0700
From: NomCom Chair nomcom-ch...@ietf.org
To: Working Group Chairs wgcha...@ietf.org
We are currently looking for volunteers to serve on the 2012-2013
NomCom. As you know, the success of the NomCom process depends
: DNSSEC Key Timing Considerations
Author(s) : Stephen Morris
Johan Ihren
John Dickinson
Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-03.txt
Pages : 33
Date: 2012-07-09
list of DNSSEC readiness and/or an outline to create such a
document.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Stephen Morris is the document shepherd.
Ron Bonica is the responsible Area Director.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document
Colleagues
The chairs have requested one-hour slot for a WG meeting at IETF-84 in
Vancouver next month and are now asking for agenda items.
Topics should ideally have been the subject of promising discussion on
the WG list, so if you have any drafts you are thinking of submitting
and would like
On 01/06/2012 22:03, SM wrote:
Dear Internet Engineering Steering Group, At 02:00 01-06-2012,
Olaf Kolkman wrote:
That is almost 6 month now. Granted, we have had some comments
coming in after the WGLC ended, all of the type that would make
reasonable errata. Besides, that is a sign that
I've been doing a final nits review of the DPS framework document while
doing the proto write-up.
There is nothing major - mainly typos/missing commas and minor
change of wording: these I've passed to editors directly.
The only significant issue is the definition of relying parties in 1.1
On 30/09/2011 14:22, Nicholas Weaver wrote:
The Old Fashoned Mail Reader Flame War below: Everyone else just
stop reading now and save your eyeballs.
By all means carry on with the discussion of the identification of
anycast nameserver instances, but Mail Reader Flame Wars are not in
the
In case you are not following MIF, nor have seen the email Andrew sent
to DNSEXT, there is a last call in MIF of
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-03.txt
... that may be of interest to people here.
Stephen
___
DNSOP mailing
On 30/06/2011 23:33, George Barwood wrote:
Is the earlier requirements draft from 2005 (linked above) substantially
incomplete in some way?
I think that would be a reasonable basis to measure, I would claim that the
CDS
record is capable of satisfying the requirements expressed there in a
On 12/06/2011 20:50, George Barwood wrote:
I have updated the draft
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-barwood-dnsop-ds-publish-02.txt
I have added an appendix with an exampler KSK rollover, and made
various generally minor changes.
IANA have now assigned type code 59 for the CDS RRtype.
Any volunteers for this important function?
Stephen
Subject: Nomcom 2011-12: Call for Volunteers
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: NomCom Chair nomcom-ch...@ietf.org
To: IETF Announcement list ietf-annou...@ietf.org
The IETF
A bit of a late reply, but prodded by the fact that Matthijs has replied
to comments on the -bis version...
On 21/04/2011 14:19, Marc Lampo wrote:
2.2. KSK Rollovers
... In the KSK case this can never be a problem as the KSK is only
used for one signature ...
Administrators should use the
All
The draft minutes for the IETF-80 WG meeting in Prague can be found at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/minutes/dnsop.txt
Can you please let the chairs know of any errors or omissions.
Thanks
Stephen Peter
___
DNSOP mailing list
Colleagues
We have received the preliminary timetable for IETF-80 in Prague and the
DNSOP working group has been allocated a one-hour slot on Friday
afternoon (1 April) from 13:00 to 14:00. Perhaps the most significant
clash is with the BEHAVE meeting; we are in the process of coordinating
with
To restart the dormant discussion on NSCP...
On 13 Dec 2010, at 08:51, Jelte Jansen wrote:
It has been said (perhaps by you) that perhaps we ought to think about
splitting
up the data model and the protocol. I'm not sure about the advantage of that
(well, apart from doc length), but thought
At the WG meeting in Beijing, the somewhat inconclusive discussion on a
nameserver control protocol was ended by the suggestion that the authors of the
two drafts discussed should write a short piece discussing the pros and cons of
their proposals and post it to the list. This is that piece
All
The draft minutes for the IETF-79 WG meeting in Beijing can be found at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/minutes/dnsop.txt
Can you please let the chairs know of any errors or omissions.
Thanks
Stephen Peter
___
DNSOP mailing list
All
The Beijing WG meeting is now only a week away and the agenda can be found at
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/agenda.
The main part of the meeting will be the discussion on the development of a
nameserver management protocol. Peter has described the background to this
All
The draft agenda for the DNSOP WG meeting in Beijing can be found at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/agenda/dnsop.txt. Please let us know if
there are any changes, omissions or other issues.
Stephen Peter
___
DNSOP mailing list
Dear WG,
The (draft) agenda for IETF 79 (Beijing) gives us a two-hour slot late Thursday
afternoon:
Date: Thursday 11 November 2010
Time: 17:40 - 19:40 (UTC + 08:00) // mext, pcp, sipcore, karp, pce, fecframe
Please let Peter and me know of any items you'd like to see on the agenda.
Also,
(Hat off)
I've had a look at draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-dps-framework-02 and have the
following main comments:
Section 4.4 Facility, Management and Operational Controls
There is a lot in here about disaster recovery planning that an organisation
should already have documented. Ought this
Colleagues
Although draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-trust-history (the DNSSEC Trust Anchor History
Service) is a working group item and the editor has received a number of
private comments on it, there has actually been relatively little discussion of
the draft on the list, either pre- or
The minutes for the working group meeting at IETF-78 can be found at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/minutes/dnsop.txt
Please let the chairs know about any errors or omissions.
Stephen
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
Hilton, California A
Date: Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Time: 13:00 - 15:00 (UTC-7)
Chairs:Peter Koch p...@isoc.de p...@denic.de
Stephen Morris stephen.mor...@nominet.org.uk
Jabber:xmpp:dn...@jabber.ietf.org
WG URL:http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/
Agenda:http
Following adoption by the working group of the key timing draft, the -00
version of draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing has been published. The
contents are the same as those of the -02 version of
draft-morris-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing, apart from the update of contact
details.
Stephen
On 1 Jul
and
benchmarking. Should the draft mention this address range and/or these
assignments?
Stephen Morris
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
from the parent zone.
Section 4, paragraph 4
--
(DNSSEC In-band Update) It is not usual to name the working group that
developed a protocol. A reference to RFC5011 should be enough.
Stephen Morris
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP
On 23/03/2010 21:42:58:, Fredrik Ljunggren fred...@kirei.se wrote:
Hi,
This draft was adopted by the working group at the meeting in Hiroshima.
Since then there has been very limited feedback on the document. A handful
of people volunteered to review the draft, and I encourage them and others
successfuly submitted by Stephen Morris and posted to the IETF
repository.
Filename:draft-morris-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing
Revision:02
Title: DNSSEC Key Timing Considerations
Creation_date:2010-03-05
WG ID: Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 35
Abstract
Wes Hardaker wjh...@hardakers.net wrote on 07/05/2009 22:04:11:
As I stated in the meeting, I think this document is a great idea as an
addition to the RFCs about DNS(SEC). Kudos for writing it, and great
kudos for the diagrams and generally clear text.
Thank you.
Comments though:
Chris Thompson c...@hermes.cam.ac.uk wrote on 17/02/2009 19:50:44:
On Feb 17 2009, stephen.mor...@nominet.org.uk wrote:
John Dickinson and Johan Ihren and I have just submitted
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-morris-dnsop-dnssec-key-
timing-00.txt
The draft gives a rigorous
45 matches
Mail list logo
