At 14:38 +0100 5/19/09, John Dickinson wrote:
This was kind of my idea - so maybe I can explain my thinking a bit. I
am wondering if this document should restrict itself purely to considering
keys and say nothing about what is signed by those keys. Therefore, it
would not use the KSK and ZSK
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:15:22AM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 14:38 +0100 5/19/09, John Dickinson wrote:
This was kind of my idea - so maybe I can explain my thinking a bit. I
am wondering if this document should restrict itself purely to considering
keys and say nothing about what is
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:
This is going to be a very useful document, two high-level points:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 01:03:09PM +0100, stephen.mor...@nominet.org.uk wrote:
Wes Hardaker wjh...@hardakers.net wrote on 07/05/2009 22:04:11:
I think it could be best handled by simply including a section near
On 19 May 2009, at 13:35, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
This is going to be a very useful document, two high-level points:
Thanks
This raises a question that we have discussed amongst ourselves,
namely
the terminology KSK and ZSK. Conceptually it is simple, in
that a ZSK
signs the records in
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 02:38:01PM +0100, John Dickinson wrote:
Sz sez...
Please don't change this. Making finer distinctions in one document,
clearly defined, is one thing. But please don't try to change
terminology we're finally starting to get people to use; it's been
(and continues to
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.
Comments though:
*** Biggest one: I still believe that this document would be horribly
remiss
