Bill,
In the interests of keeping things simple:
Do you have substantive changes to RFC 2181 to propose for WG consideration at
this time?
If so-- please provide the list with pointers to the relevant internet-drafts.
If not-- I hope that when you do have substantive changes to suggest, you'l
In message <97edc878-847a-4ff3-809a-09606bebf...@karoshi.com>, manning writes:
>
>
> On 10July2015Friday, at 13:12, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>
> >
> >> On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:31 PM, manning wrote:
> >>
> >> I am aware of at least three of the independent ideas in RFC 2181
> that folks are worki
On 10July2015Friday, at 13:12, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>
>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:31 PM, manning wrote:
>>
>> I am aware of at least three of the independent ideas in RFC 2181 that
>> folks are working on:
>>
>> draft-pfrc-2181--naming-issues-00
>> draft-pfrc-2181-handling-zone-cuts-00
In message , David Conrad
writes:
> Andrew,
>
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:53:22PM +, Alain Durand wrote:
> >>
> >> - RFC6761 does not say anything wrt to coordination between IETF and
> ICANN
> >> on this topic.
> >
> > Or with regar
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 1:31 PM, manning wrote:
>
> I am aware of at least three of the independent ideas in RFC 2181 that folks
> are working on:
>
> draft-pfrc-2181--naming-issues-00
> draft-pfrc-2181-handling-zone-cuts-00 (isn’t this the basis for the dbound
> work?)
> draft-pfrc-2181-reso
On Jul 10, 2015, at 10:31 AM, manning wrote:
> Ok, so that is four. The rational for eight is so that nothing gets lost
> and we can garbage collect RFC 2181, moving it to historic.
> Then each idea can progress independently, without the linkage to any of the
> other work and without the vest
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:20 AM, wrote:
> Akira Kato and I submitted draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-01.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse/
>
> * Added reference to DLV {{RFC5074}} and imported some sentences.
> * Added Aggressive Negative Cachi
In general I support this document, with some minor comments below:
Abstract:
s/approache/approach
Section 1.1
2nd paragraph:
s/recomendations/recommendations
"it" is repeated twice in the sentence starting: "While these recomendations
are mainly aimed at Host Validators it it..."
s/Valida
I am aware of at least three of the independent ideas in RFC 2181 that folks
are working on:
draft-pfrc-2181--naming-issues-00
draft-pfrc-2181-handling-zone-cuts-00 (isn’t this the basis for the dbound
work?)
draft-pfrc-2181-resource-record-sets-00
draft-pfrc-2181-tc-bit-00
Ok, so that is fou
A re-ordering of the previous message happens here:
On 7/9/15, 13:45, "DNSOP on behalf of hellekin" wrote:
> *** Should IETF use social media to expand their reach? (@ietf?
>@dnsopwg?)
Oddly enough, ICANN does this, an in fact the ICANN staff includes a
Communications Team whose job is to engag
Bill,
On Jul 10, 2015, at 9:38 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> Question:
> What sections of 2181 do you see the need to update?
This seems to be the critical question to your chairs and our AD as well.
If I understand it correctly, your proposed document roadmap has us putting
eight documen
Andrew,
On Jul 10, 2015, at 5:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:53:22PM +, Alain Durand wrote:
>>
>> - RFC6761 does not say anything wrt to coordination between IETF and ICANN
>> on this topic.
>
> Or with regard to co-ordination between anyone else and the IETF.
T
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 2:50 PM, manning wrote:
>
> With the WG Chairs permission.
>
> RFC 2181 is growing a both long in the tooth. It is, by its own admission, a
> collection of eight distinct and independent ideas. As such, it is difficult
> to work on one of
> those ideas without raising
On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 03:53:22PM +, Alain Durand wrote:
>
> - RFC6761 does not say anything wrt to coordination between IETF and ICANN
> on this topic.
Or with regard to co-ordination between anyone else and the IETF.
This is part of why I say the IETF retains the ability to take some
names
14 matches
Mail list logo
