perhaps… I think (well it used to work this way) that regardless of HOW it
comes under IETF purview, once it does,
it is no longer under the change control of the submitting organization.
manning
bmann...@karoshi.com
PO Box 6151
Playa del Rey, CA 90296
310.322.8102
On 8October2015Thursda
Suzanne,
> (Jonne Soininen is the current liaison manager, cc'd).
Jonne's email address looks suspiciously like Andrew's :)
> This sounds like you'd be OK with publishing the document as an Informational
> RFC,
Yes.
> mod making sure it's accurate as a current description,
Most important and
>In the past, when organizations found themselves in the same situation that
>ICANN seems to find itself in here
>(at least as outlined by yourself, below)
>they have done what ICANN has done and is trying to do now, which is to pass
>the document on to a neutral third
>party for �safe keeping�.
In the past, when organizations found themselves in the same situation that
ICANN seems to find itself in here (at least as outlined by yourself, below)
they have done what ICANN has done and is trying to do now, which is to pass
the document on to a neutral third party for “safe keeping”. One
On 8 Oct 2015, at 11:08, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:06:47AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
What am I missing?
From my POV, nothing. Paul seemed to be suggesting that the current
arrangements should be published somehow other than as "an IETF
document". Maybe he meant "
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:06:47AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
>
> What am I missing?
>From my POV, nothing. Paul seemed to be suggesting that the current
arrangements should be published somehow other than as "an IETF
document". Maybe he meant "send it up the Independent Submissions
editor with
Hi,
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 09:39:06AM -0400, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Fully agree. That is why this should not be an IETF document, and instead it
>> should be written and published by the organization that is responsible for
>> the formats
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 09:39:06AM -0400, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Fully agree. That is why this should not be an IETF document, and instead it
> should be written and published by the organization that is responsible for
> the formats and publication methods.
I don't really care how this happens, bu
On 7 Oct 2015, at 21:59, Jiankang Yao wrote:
draft-yao-dnsop-root-cache improves on draft-ietf-dnsop-root-loopback
in the following ways:
1. The resolver which supports draft-yao-dnsop-root-cache is still a
resolver which still needs to get the root data information from 13
dns root servers.
