Hi Ed,
On Aug 24, 2012, at 19:54 , Edward Lewis wrote:
At 23:49 +0200 8/23/12, Peter Koch wrote:
Dear DNSOP WG,
this is to initiate a working group last call (WGLC) for
DNSSEC Key Timing Considerations
draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-key-timing-03.txt
On Aug 20, 2012, at 17:33 , Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:19 AM, Peter Koch p...@denic.de wrote:
Andrew,
In the archives since the meeting, I observe some comments at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg09783.html. But
I do not observe the announcement of
On 2012-08-30 9:40 AM, Johan Ihrén wrote:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 17:33 , Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:19 AM, Peter Koch p...@denic.de wrote:
My current reading of the sense of the WG is that we move to
WGLC with -03, declaring the July 24 suggestion out of scope
for this document
On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
On 2012-08-30 9:40 AM, Johan Ihrén wrote:
Not to question the abilities of the WG, but I still have to ask whether (in
your opinion) the operations community would be better off with a single
document that may be finished
On 2012-08-30, at 13:11, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
On 2012-08-30 9:40 AM, Johan Ihrén wrote:
Not to question the abilities of the WG, but I still have to ask whether
(in your opinion) the operations community
On Aug 30, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Joe Abley joe.ab...@icann.org wrote:
I suspect an increasing proportion of operators doing DNSSEC do not care how
to do rollovers, in fact. They care that the software they're using to manage
keys and sign things is doing the right thing.
Good point, yes.
The
Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
while i agree with these sentiments i have a broader concern. ietf's
mantra is good engineering. if we know now that keytiming has flaws, and
we are only considering publishing it because we know our own record
shows that reaching consensus for keytiming-bis
