Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-00.txt

On 12/10/15, 13:13, "DNSOP on behalf of Bob Harold" wrote: > that information might be useful to the receiver. This raises a good point to me. As someone who will be in the position of making use of such data (if available), what will I

Re: [DNSOP] code points for brainpool curves for DNSSEC

I have nothing to add to what Ólafur wrote below. I agree with his statement. Patrik On 10 Dec 2015, at 1:33, Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote: > Stephen, > > Sorry for being so blunt below. > > The document totally content free as to why this makes any sense in an > operational context. > DNSSEC

[DNSOP] Fwd: Re: [saag] code points for brainpool curves for DNSSEC

FYI. Please continue to follow up on the saag list for now so the discussion (if more is needed) is in one place. (And thanks for doing that so far.) S. Forwarded Message Subject: Re: [saag] [DNSOP] code points for brainpool curves for DNSSEC Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:39:17

Re: [DNSOP] new Resource record?

On 9 Dec 2015, at 21:25, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: > I would like to suggest the following format (this is the rough version and > it is not exact but only giving you an idea that what is the purpose) for a > new resource record to store the reference information of bounding of > authentication

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-00.txt

On 12/4/15, 22:44, "DNSOP on behalf of John Levine" wrote: >It occurs to me that there's a difference between local and localhost >on the one hand and onion on the other. With local and localhost, you >still something like an A or record

Re: [DNSOP] new Resource record?

Hi Patrik, Thanks for your message and your suggestion. > > A few things: > > 1. Do not use TXT RR. We have already too much use of TXT, and you should > define a new RRType Ok , I think this is also Edward's opinion. > 2. There are multiple reasons why you should not use TXT record or even

Re: [DNSOP] new Resource record?

> On Dec 10, 2015, at 8:47 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: > > Jared, > > You've just made the naughty list for 2015. > > Santa I know I’m permanently on that list since I was given coal as a kid. - Jared ___ DNSOP mailing list

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-00.txt

> On Dec 10, 2015, at 03:08, George Michaelson wrote: > The 7 Layer model is a useful tool to talk about things, its not a rei-fied > thing. That said, apparent layer violations invite critique because they > inherently carry architectural consequence. Very true. :-) > I

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-00.txt

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 3:27 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations Working > Group of the IETF. > > Title : The EDNS Key Tag

Re: [DNSOP] new Resource record?

On Dec 9, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: HR> I would like to suggest the following format (this is the rough version HR> and it is not exact but only giving you an idea that what is the HR> purpose) for a new resource record to store the reference information HR> of

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Re: [saag] code points for brainpool curves for DNSSEC

I'm not on SAAG and don't have the time to add another mail list... My one recommendation is, if they want to assign this a DNSSEC security algorithm number, propose that in a separate draft akin to what's in RFCs 5155, 5702, 5933, 6605 - or as seen in the DNS Security Algorithm Numbers registry

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: Re: [saag] code points for brainpool curves for DNSSEC

Never mind my recommendation - the cited draft is the right form. (But given the comments to date, it seems that the crypto-ists aren't recommending this.) On 12/10/15, 8:54, "Edward Lewis" wrote: >My one recommendation is, if they want to assign this a DNSSEC security