I forgot to put the github link below:
https://github.com/ietf-homenet-wg/front-end-naming-delegation-dhc-options/commit/769a236615d47d812037bf3b74cddeefb9d5daf2
Yours,
Daniel
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:34 AM Daniel Migault wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> We implemented the change and used DNS over mutual
Hi Paul,
We implemented the change and used DNS over mutually TLS (DomTLS) to
represent DoT and XoT. We do believe we have address all your concerns for
this draft and your DISCUSS can be lifted. The other document has its
own DISCUSS and I do not believe there is any need to hold a DISCUSS. Of
co
I am happy to close this issue with DNS over mTLS.
Yours,
Daniel
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 7:19 PM Paul Wouters wrote:
> I did see the previous reply and it doesn’t make too much sense to me.
>
> You could say “mutually authenticated TLS” or something but I find it a
> little odd that these two thi
I did see the previous reply and it doesn’t make too much sense to me.
You could say “mutually authenticated TLS” or something but I find it a little
odd that these two things which are separate are one option. Perhaps it is
better if we resolve the other document DISCUSS first and then see if t
I thought I responded to it, but was not able to find the response... until
I realized the response is not inline... but in the main part of the email.
I am copying the response here - and take that inline text seems much
clearer.
The reason we mentioned both RFC7858 and RFC9103 is that the commun
Was there a problem with my suggested CURRENT / NEW suggestion ?
Sent using a virtual keyboard on a phone
> On Oct 28, 2022, at 15:14, Daniel Migault wrote:
>
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I am wondering if there are any remaining concerns left for the
> draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-optio
Hi Paul,
I am wondering if there are any remaining concerns left for
the draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options document and
anything you would like us to address to lift your discuss.
Yours,
Daniel
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 8:49 PM Daniel Migault wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for the
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the follow-up. The reason we mentioned both RFC7858 and RFC9103
is that the communication between the Homenet Naming Authority (HNA) and
the Distribution Manager (DM) involves two different channels. The Control
Channel that aims at configuring/managing the Synchronization Chan
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 10:45 PM Daniel Migault wrote:
> While TLS gives you privacy,
>
>> the DNS Update cannot be done with only TLS (as far as I understand it).
>>>
>>> please develop, but just in case, we do not use dns update to
>>> synchronize the zone. we use AFXR/IXRF over TLS define din
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the feedback. This is interesting. Please see my responses. I do
not see any need to add some text, but I am happy to do so if you think
that is needed.
Yours,
Daniel
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 8:57 PM Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 4:04 PM Daniel Migault
> w
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 4:04 PM Daniel Migault wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Some brief element of response to your questions. While you are raising
> comments within a DISCUSS see your comment as a very high level question on
> what is the content of the draft with many questions related not to that
> d
Hi Paul,
Some brief element of response to your questions. While you are raising
comments within a DISCUSS see your comment as a very high level question on
what is the content of the draft with many questions related not to that
draft. I am happy to respond, but there is nothing actionable that c
Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-21: Discuss
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.)
13 matches
Mail list logo
