Dear WG,
tl;dr: We found an issue and requires changes in the final rollover
diagram text and would like your feedback on it.
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-06.txt has gone through IETF Last
Call and IESG and minor, non-blocking issues were raised, resulting in
minor corrections and
From: DNSOP dnsop-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of Paul Ebersman
list-dn...@dragon.net
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:21 PM
To: dnsop@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing
ajs giving useful advice, even if not perfect, on this topic will be
ajs more helpful than
srose I can't speak for all of .gov, but I think the draft is ready for
srose publication. Once it has an RFC number it will get worked into
srose products and ops manuals. Since a lot of .gov agencies
srose outsource, or use appliances, I wouldn't expect much feedback. :)
Having worked
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 03:10:16PM -0400, Paul Ebersman wrote:
Sadly, you are probably right on feedback from some of the vendors and
most .govs...
Not everyone who consumes our documents (or the results of them) is
going to tell us about their experiences. On the other hand, a couple
of blog
Not everyone who consumes our documents (or the results of them) is
going to tell us about their experiences.
I'm adding DNSSEC to the zones I host, and I've already found it
useful. Ship it, please.
R's,
John
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
ajs giving useful advice, even if not perfect, on this topic will be
ajs more helpful than producting perfect advice.
[...]
ajs Please publish it.
+1
Many folks won't implement this until it's an RFC (.gov, etc.) but will
and give feedback once it's out. Perfect is the enemy of progress...
On Aug 20, 2012, at 17:33 , Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:19 AM, Peter Koch p...@denic.de wrote:
Andrew,
In the archives since the meeting, I observe some comments at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg09783.html. But
I do not observe the announcement of
On 2012-08-30 9:40 AM, Johan Ihrén wrote:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 17:33 , Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:19 AM, Peter Koch p...@denic.de wrote:
My current reading of the sense of the WG is that we move to
WGLC with -03, declaring the July 24 suggestion out of scope
for this document
On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
On 2012-08-30 9:40 AM, Johan Ihrén wrote:
Not to question the abilities of the WG, but I still have to ask whether (in
your opinion) the operations community would be better off with a single
document that may be finished
On 2012-08-30, at 13:11, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
On 2012-08-30 9:40 AM, Johan Ihrén wrote:
Not to question the abilities of the WG, but I still have to ask whether
(in your opinion) the operations community
On Aug 30, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Joe Abley joe.ab...@icann.org wrote:
I suspect an increasing proportion of operators doing DNSSEC do not care how
to do rollovers, in fact. They care that the software they're using to manage
keys and sign things is doing the right thing.
Good point, yes.
The
Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
while i agree with these sentiments i have a broader concern. ietf's
mantra is good engineering. if we know now that keytiming has flaws, and
we are only considering publishing it because we know our own record
shows that reaching consensus for keytiming-bis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/20/2012 05:33 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:19 AM, Peter Koch p...@denic.de wrote:
Andrew,
In the archives since the meeting, I observe some comments at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg09783.html.
On Aug 21, 2012, at 12:12 AM, Matthijs Mekking matth...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
I am afraid that one document just isn't sufficient. Adding a rollover
time line requires a fair amount of pages to cover the timing details
(at least with the current approach). The current document now covers
six
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/21/2012 05:53 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 21, 2012, at 12:12 AM, Matthijs Mekking
matth...@nlnetlabs.nl wrote:
I am afraid that one document just isn't sufficient. Adding a
rollover time line requires a fair amount of pages to cover the
On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:19 AM, Peter Koch p...@denic.de wrote:
Andrew,
In the archives since the meeting, I observe some comments at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg09783.html. But
I do not observe the announcement of a WGLC. I am wondering when we
might expect that
Dear colleagues,
In Vancouver, according to the DNSOP minutes, participants were to
expect a WGLC soon on the subject Internet Draft.
In the archives since the meeting, I observe some comments at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg09783.html. But
I do not observe the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I am questioning if the duration of 30 days with respect to adding a KSK
is the absolute correct value. The 30 days is a validator parameter that
says a trust anchor must stay in the AddPend state for that amount of time
before it may
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/20/2010 01:03 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:22:25AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:26:27AM +0200, Johan Ihren wrote:
B. Better to publish what we have and initiate work on a -bis document
On 20/10/2010 4:32 AM, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/20/2010 01:03 AM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:22:25AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:26:27AM +0200, Johan Ihren wrote:
B. Better to publish what we
All,
This document has been making the rounds for some 2.5 years now, initally as a
personal submission by the authors, and later on as a WG document. The reason
that it has taken so long is a combination of
* the subject matter being quite complicated and several re-starts trying to
find
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:26:27AM +0200, Johan Ihren wrote:
B. Better to publish what we have and initiate work on a -bis document
immediately. Also known as the Perfect is the Enemy of Timely-alternative.
I like this, but I'd like it more if there were text in the document
that said
At 10:22 AM -0400 10/19/10, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:26:27AM +0200, Johan Ihren wrote:
B. Better to publish what we have and initiate work on a -bis document
immediately. Also known as the Perfect is the Enemy of Timely-alternative.
I like this, but I'd like it more if
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:22:25AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:26:27AM +0200, Johan Ihren wrote:
B. Better to publish what we have and initiate work on a -bis document
immediately. Also known as the Perfect is the Enemy of
Timely-alternative.
I like this,
24 matches
Mail list logo
