nski wrote:
>
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec
>
> Current versions of the draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec/
>
> The Current Intended Status of this docu
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:20 AM Frederico A C Neves
wrote:
> Shane,
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 04:52:22PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
> > One minor thing I noticed while looking through the document. It
> > mentions the Brazilian ccTLD as background why using a liberal rollover
> > is workable:
Shane,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 04:52:22PM +0100, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Benno and all,
>
> Overall the document is clear and I hope helpful to organizations
> pursuing a multi-DNS vendor setup who want to use DNSSEC (as all do, I
> am sure).
>
> One minor thing I noticed while looking through
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 6:41 PM Paul Hoffman wrote:
> This document seems complete and well-written. Is is also kinda scary, but
> that's why we need to document the operational practices in it.
>
> --Paul Hoffman___
>
>
I agree with Paul. Looks good,
shape. Still
the chairs would like to see some comments and feedback. Positive
feedback that the document is ready to go is also fine.
Thanks,
-- Benno
On 31/10/2019 16:47, Tim Wicinski wrote:
This starts a Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec
Current versions
This draft looks to be in good shape – I support this as a standard.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
This document seems complete and well-written. Is is also kinda scary, but
that's why we need to document the operational practices in it.
--Paul Hoffman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
tjw> This starts a Working Group Last Call for
tjw> draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec
[...]
tjw> Please review the draft and offer relevant comments.
I think this draft is in good shape. We've been using this as validation
of $DAYJOB procs around this area and have not found
d like to see some comments and feedback. Positive
> feedback that the document is ready to go is also fine.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Benno
>
>> On 31/10/2019 16:47, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>
>> This starts a Working Group Last Call for
>> draft-ietf-dnso
Group Last Call for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec
>
> Current versions of the draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec/
>
> The Current Intended Status of this document is: Informational
>
> FYI, I w
This starts a Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec
Current versions of the draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-multi-provider-dnssec/
The Current Intended Status of this document is: Informational
FYI, I will not shepherd
11 matches
Mail list logo
