Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: General comment about downgrades vs. setting expectations in protocol definitions

On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 4:49 AM Peter Thomassen wrote: > > > On 2/1/24 13:34, Edward Lewis wrote: > > The proper response will depend on the reason - more accurately the > presumed (lacking any out-of-band signals) reason - why the record is > absent. > > Barring any other information, the proper

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-domain-verification-techniques-03.txt

Should the IANA registry be involved for the `wildcard`, `host`, and `domain` scope values that are mentioned in the draft? -- Amir Omidi (he/them) ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] AD Review of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis

I'm not a big fan of "whereas" clauses, partially because I'm related to rather large number of lawyers. Does anyone object to the following? Since the priming response is not a referral, root server addresses in the priming response are not considered glue records. Thus, RFC 9471 does not