-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11-07-11 11:51, Marc Lampo wrote:
Dear all,
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barwood-dnsop-ds-publish-02.txt
There does not seem to be a lot of feedback on this draft ?
(some comments on version 01 only)
I have read the draft, and I have
Antoin Verschuren wrote:
I have read the draft, and I have given it some thought.
Though I advocate a child-parent signalling method for key roll-overs,
I
think this is not the correct way forward, and I'll explain why.
As a registry for .nl we have decided not to accept DS records from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21-07-11 14:15, Stephan Lagerholm wrote:
I suggested to use another flag for the DNSKEY a few months ago here. The
reaction from the list was that it was too complicated because the key-id
would change during the lifetime of the DNSKEY.
Why
On Thursday, July 21, 2011 9:36 AM Antoin Verschuren wrote:
On 21-07-11 14:15, Stephan Lagerholm wrote:
I suggested to use another flag for the DNSKEY a few months ago here.
The
reaction from the list was that it was too complicated because the
key-id
would change during the lifetime
Dear all,
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-barwood-dnsop-ds-publish-02.txt
There does not seem to be a lot of feedback on this draft ?
(some comments on version 01 only)
Yet, couldn’t this lead to better acceptance of DNSSEC deployment ?
Personally I had two questions/remarks when I (only) just
