On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 01:13:37PM -0500,
Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
Of course hopefully ssh is implemented in such a way that it makes
sure the SSHFP RR has been validated by the resolver before using
it; I haven't actually tried it, so I don't
On 27-Apr-2009, at 09:05, Edward Lewis wrote:
Perhaps we should avoid the RFC 5513 HSM and just spell it out - a
(cryptographic) hardware support module.
Hardware Security Module is the more usual expanded form, I think?
Joe
___
DNSOP mailing
At 9:16 -0400 4/27/09, Joe Abley wrote:
Hardware Security Module is the more usual expanded form, I think?
Wikipedia sides with you, Joe.
Toh-may-to, Toh-ma-toh. ;)
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStarYou can
Holger Zuleger (Holger.Zuleger) writes:
Even BIND as a (local) forwarding name server is not able to use
GSS-TSIG to protect the communication with the recursive name server.
You can setup TSIG between recursive nameservers.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm looking for a TSIG
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:44:42 -0700, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
said:
DB I've read the draft at the URL above and am generally supportive of
DB its moving forward.
Doug,
Thanks for responding with a review about the Management Requirements
document. I've applied all your very useful
On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:42:39 -0700, SM s...@resistor.net said:
s From the Abstract:
...
Thanks for the comments on the draft; I've incorporated all of your changes.
--
In the bathtub of history the truth is harder to hold than the soap,
and much more difficult to find. -- Terry Pratchett
