In message <20160325142954.ga18...@nic.fr>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:05:19PM -0800, > "IETF Secretariat" <age...@ietf.org> wrote > a message of 42 lines which said: > > > dnsop Session 1 (2:00:00) > > Friday, Morning Session I 1000-1200 > > Room Name: Buen Ayre C size: 250 > > Nothing about draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue,
I've suggested pure discussion time to raise any outstanding issues for draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue as it is coming up to being WGLC'd. [rock:~/marka/bind-sanity-checks/bind9-git] marka% show 6355 (Message outbox:6355) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:47:25 +1100 To: tjw.i...@gmail.com, suzworldw...@gmail.com From: Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> Subject: Is it worth while adding time for no-response-issue? This isn't a presentation but time for anyone to raise any issues they have with the draft at the mic. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org [rock:~/marka/bind-sanity-checks/bind9-git] marka% > draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any or draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming? Is > it because they are fine, no issues pending or because they are dead? > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
