I like the formatting in the new draft, a great improvement! And thanks
for incorporating so many of my suggestions.
I mentioned an alphabetical index in my previous comment - I expect that
will be easier to add during final editing. I want to mention it again
because one of the main questions a r
On Jun 4, 2015, at 4:05 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Are there any implementations of this draft?
Assuming you mean "is anyone deploying the ideas in this draft, particularly
those in Appendix B", that would be good information for the authors to have.
> If resolvers are encouraged to use NSEC recor
Are there any implementations of this draft?
If resolvers are encouraged to use NSEC records to synthesize NXDOMAIN
responses, would there still be any point to this draft?
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
Rockall: Southeasterly 5 to 7, becoming cyclonic 7 to severe gale 9,
occasio
Hi
The Adoption period passed last night and we had many comments, and the
rough consensus is that this should be adopted by the working group.
Authors, can you submit your updated version.
Thanks to all with the constructive comments.
tim
On 5/20/15 7:13 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
From the
This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback
Current versions of the draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback/
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback-01
Please review the draft and offer relevant com
>I agree that if you had a registry that had no unique entry, there'd
>be no problem. But if you have to be prepared for identifier
>collisions anyway, what use is the registry?
It tells you where to find out about foo.alt if you want to use that
particular un-DNS hack. Other than that, not much
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 12:16:05PM -0400, Bob Harold wrote:
>
> I think the difference is that ".alt" names should not be leaked into DNS,
> but should be kept private.
But there will be such leaks, so that's no defence. And for local
use, a DNS leak wouldn't be an issue either, some would argue
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 07:53:02PM -, John Levine wrote:
> I think the key difference would be that it would accept any number of
> entries for the same string
I thought that Ted's idea was uniqueness. (Otherwise there wouldn't
be a landrush.)
I agree that if you had a registry that had no u
>> This is a really good point. I think there does need to be a .ALT registry
>> in order for .ALT to be able to
>address anything other than experimental uses.
>And I think this would actually be a good thing.
>
>If we created a registry for alt, how would alt not be just another
>TLD with exac
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Andrew Sullivan
wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:48:41PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> >
> > This is a really good point. I think there does need to be a .ALT
> registry in order for .ALT to be able to address anything other than
> experimental uses.
> And I thin
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 01:48:41PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> This is a really good point. I think there does need to be a .ALT registry
> in order for .ALT to be able to address anything other than experimental uses.
And I think this would actually be a good thing.
If we created a registry f
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 07:06:11AM -0500, Tom Ritter wrote:
> On 5/19/15 5:18 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> > round.) Is there something that the IETF should be doing to help DNS
> > implementers and operators handle this change in the environment?
>
> Yes - and I've not been following the effort clo
On 3.6.2015 17:00, Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 08:40:16AM +0200, Petr Spacek wrote:
>> Could this be added to agenda for IETF 93? Does it make sense to discuss
>> it there?
>
> Unfortunately I won't be in Prague, but I do expect to be in Yokohama.
> If you or someone else would like
13 matches
Mail list logo
