Subject: Update SIGs

From: Mark Gritter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:04:41 -0700 (PDT)

What owner name should update request SIGs have?  (in RFC 2137-style
authentication of dynamic updates.)  I can't seem to find any
discussion--- does it not matter?  The "type covered" of '0' is sufficient
to identify the RR as an update request signature, so I guess the RR name 
could be ignored.

Mark Gritter
[email-masked]

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 00:10:15 -0400

See RFC 2535, Section 4.2, item 5: "To conserve space, the owner name
SHOULD be root (a single zero octet)."

Note that there is some ferment in this area.
draft-ietf-dnssec-update2-00.txt exists in the draft directories as
part of an effort to update RFC 2137 to RFC 2535 and to simplify it a
little.  The update2 draft may be further revised to drasticly simply
public key authenticated updated.  In the mean time,
draft-ietf-dnsind-simple-secure-update-00.txt also exists which has
many good ideas in it for secret key authenticated update.

Donald

From:  Mark Gritter <[email-masked]>
Message-Id:  <[email-masked]>
To:  [email-masked]
Date:  Thu, 10 Jun 1999 17:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Sender:  [email-masked]

---

From: Andras Salamon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:00:03 +0200

The DNSSEC merger with DNSIND seems to be casting shadows in the form of a
few I-Ds that have been transferred, but not much else.  The IETF working
group page still talks about the two groups as if they are separate.
When is the merger going to start in earnest, or finish?

-- Andras Salamon                   [email-masked]
-- http://www.dns.net/dnsrd/        DNS Resources Directory
--                                  The online DNS reference since 1994

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 10:38:15 +1000

Date:        Sun, 13 Jun 1999 23:00:03 +0200
    From:        Andras Salamon <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | When is the merger going to start in earnest, or finish?

When I finally get around to completing the draft charter for the
combined group, and send it around for comments.

I should have finished that ages ago, and I apologise to everyone
(perhaps most the other chairs of these groups, and the relevant ADs).
I have some excuses, but they're not relevant here.

I hope to have something to be considered this week.

kre