Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-04: (with COMMENT)

Hiya, On 16/02/17 21:43, Wessels, Duane wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > > >> >> -- >> >> COMMENT: >> -- >> >> >> >> - abstract: referring to section 1.1 from her

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt

Wes Hardaker writes: > Fortunately, after a quick conversation we've recovered the reason. > Publishing a new version with a break-out explanation shortly. The 3/2 > is absolutely is needed. I've published -03 which adds new text just below the equation explaining the components (and the equati

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt

Warren Kumari writes: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote: >> Bob Harold writes: >> >>> Thanks for your work on this. Some minor formatting issues: >> >> Odd. I think *someone* wasn't using a real editor (*cough*emacs*cough*) >> and it inserted some odd white space into XML

[DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-05.txt

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 of the IETF. Title : Signaling Trust Anchor Knowledge in DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) Authors : Duane Wessels

Re: [DNSOP] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-04: (with COMMENT)

Hi Stephen, > > -- > COMMENT: > -- > > > - abstract: referring to section 1.1 from here seems wrong, > the abstract ought be readable by itself Agreed. I pr

[DNSOP] .belkin as a special use name

> On 16 Feb 2017, at 17:47, Edward Lewis wrote: > > What about .belkin, often cited as a string seen but not allocated? It was so prominent in one year’s root server DITL data (in the top 20 TLDs that were queried?) that it was mentioned in the 2013 Interisle Name Collision report I helped to

Re: [DNSOP] [Ext] Re: Ed's comment s on Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On 2/16/17, 12:23, "Suzanne Woolf" wrote: On Feb 16, 2017, at 11:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote: Ed: >>>It would be good to provide a list of requests for new special use names. >>>Especially for a problem statement, this provides a way to estimate the  >>>"size and shape" of the problem and the urge

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote: > Bob Harold writes: > >> Thanks for your work on this. Some minor formatting issues: > > Odd. I think *someone* wasn't using a real editor (*cough*emacs*cough*) > and it inserted some odd white space into XML components. ... and it seems t

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt

Wes Hardaker writes: > Sadly, we had a reason and now Warren and I have to remember it. Fortunately, after a quick conversation we've recovered the reason. Publishing a new version with a break-out explanation shortly. The 3/2 is absolutely is needed. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _

Re: [DNSOP] Ed's comment s on Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

> On Feb 16, 2017, at 11:46 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > > Ed: > >> #Special-Use Domain Names [RFC6761] created an IANA registry for >> #special-use Domain Names [SDO-IANA-SUDR], defined policies for adding >> #to the registry, and made some suggestions about how that policy >> #mi

Re: [DNSOP] Ed's comment s on Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Ed: > #Special-Use Domain Names [RFC6761] created an IANA registry for > #special-use Domain Names [SDO-IANA-SUDR], defined policies for adding > #to the registry, and made some suggestions about how that policy > #might be implemented. Since the publication of RFC 6761, the IETF

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt

Bob Harold writes: > Thanks for your work on this.  Some minor formatting issues: Odd. I think *someone* wasn't using a real editor (*cough*emacs*cough*) and it inserted some odd white space into XML components. Thanks for the catches; fixed on all accounts. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _

Re: [DNSOP] New Version Notification for draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-02.txt

Petr Špaček writes: > Shane was faster than me, I'm also wondering how 3/2 got here. Yep. And had we been smarter and written it down when we first wrote it, there wouldn't be this question. Sadly, we had a reason and now Warren and I have to remember it. We spent a long time wandering around

[DNSOP] Ed's comment s on Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Lines beginning with "#" are from the document. "# ..." means I removed the section as I had no comment on it. # Network Working Group T. Lemon # Internet-Draft Nominum, Inc. # Intended status: Informational

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-02.txt

Hi, I originally wrote these notes against the -00 version. -02 is much improved and many of my notes have gone away. However, there are a couple of minor things I think could be tweaked…. §1 "...When reading this document, care must be taken to not assume that the term Domain Name implies the

Re: [DNSOP] Webex details Re: correction Re: virtual interim DNSOP WG meeting and current status, special use names

The intent is to conduct the session as much like an ordinary IETF WG meeting as possible. So yes, we’ll monitor the jabber room and record the session. This also means we’ll need a note-taker, any volunteers?? Suzanne > On Feb 16, 2017, at 7:40 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott > wrote: > > Will the

Re: [DNSOP] Webex details Re: correction Re: virtual interim DNSOP WG meeting and current status, special use names

Will the jabber room at dn...@jabber.ietf.org also be used? Scott From: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Suzanne Woolf Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 6:50 PM To: dnsop Subject: [EXTERNAL] [DNSOP] Webex details Re: correction Re: virtual in

[DNSOP] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-04: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-key-tag-04: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer