Subject: DNSSECbis question list - not official

From: "Scott Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 08:18:02 -0400

I got a request for the questions that were posted/discussed on
namedroppers.  Here they are, with the perceived consensus.  There are some
holes (Q7 may exist, but I don't remember it and couldn't find it).

If I have any missing parts (and missing resolutions) let me know.

As I have them:

Q1 - resolved

Q2 - Should we move DSA to "optional" and have RSA/SHA1 be the only
mandatory to implement algorithm?
        *Consensus? *

Q3 - Can we drop the requirement to add the KEY/SIG(KEY) to the additional
section of a response?
        *Consensus seems to be in favor of dropping requirement*

Q4 - mistake in numbering, there is no Q4

Q5 - Should algorithm code 252 (now "Indirect") remain, or move it to
"Reserved"?
         *Consensus? Could not find any resolution in archives *

Q6 - Started as "Should sec-aware resolvers cache known "BAD" data"? but
now encompasses how servers/resolvers should interpret the CD bit in the DNS
header.
        * No formal consensus reached yet, discussion died out *

Q7 -  ?? possibly another mistake.

Q8 - Should the apex allow zone KEY RRs only?
        *Consensus seems to be no restrictions at all on KEY RR placement in
a zone *

Q9 - Dropping the SIG(NXT) from the NXT RRs included in the Auth. section on
wildcard and negative replies
        *Consensus seems to be no allowing of NXT/SIG(NXT) breakup in
authority section.  Truncate response *

Scott

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>