On 05/01/16 17:40 +, Sara Dickinson wrote:
>
> > On 23 Dec 2015, at 13:30, Sara Dickinson wrote:
> >>
> >> [JM] Sorry, this is my fault on the confusion on the previous two
> >> comments - I was actually still confused by section 3.2.1 (not 3.3.2)
> >> paragraph 3, why a DNS client would fir
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 1/7/16 11:35 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
>
> On 1/7/16, 2:30 PM, "Brian Haberman"
> wrote:
>
>>> What happens now? A two week PS Last Call? (a question for
>>> JoelŠ)
>>
>> As an AD (at least for the next 3 months), I don't think we ne
Hi Allison,
On 1/7/16 2:26 PM, Mankin, Allison wrote:
> Alvaro,
>
> Thanks for the update! I did quickly learn my error on this. It shows
> how we skim familiar things like Last Calls - I had expected it was PS and
> I didn¹t see the IS designation there at all.
>
> I wasn¹t able to be on the
It is intended as ps, given the changes I think advancement to IS is
not warrented notwithstanding wide deployment.
The duration of the last call looks to be my bad and I will have to
correct that.
joel
On 1/6/16 8:55 AM, Mankin, Allison wrote:
> Alvaro,
>
> The draft aims for PS, not IS. I thi
Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-05: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer t
On 1/7/16 6:52 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi Sara,
>
> On 07/01/16 10:54, sara wrote:
>>
>>> On 6 Jan 2016, at 21:58, Stephen Farrell
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hiya,
Speaking for myself I don’t see this as the solution to managing
DTLS sessions, I think that would be better handl
On 7 Jan 2016, at 6:56, sara wrote:
=== Editorial===
-1: "... TCP is henceforth a REQUIRED ..."
Since the normative language is strengthened in section 5, the
REQUIRED
seems redundant here. I'd suggest stating this without the 2119
keyword.
This mimics exactly what was done in the original
On 7 Jan 2016, at 5:34, sara wrote:
On 6 Jan 2016, at 20:08, Ben Campbell wrote:
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-05: No Objection
--
COMMENT:
Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-5966bis-05: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://w
Hi Stephen,
We're glad you drew this important point to our attention, but it appears
to be needed for draft-ietf-dprive-dns-over-tls rather than this draft. In
this draft we don't touch on the privacy/TLS motivation for TCP at all,
leaving all that for the dprive draft.
The dprive draft has jus
> On 6 Jan 2016, at 14:54, Brian Haberman wrote:
>
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
> While I am not a fan of standards-track requirements documents, I
> understand the
> On 6 Jan 2016, at 20:08, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-edns-tcp-keepalive-05: No Objection
>
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
Sara and Ray,
I made my point.
If you guys feel strongly about that, fine with me. It's a COMMENT after
all.
Regards, Benoit
On 6 Jan 2016, at 15:32, Benoit Claise wrote:
Ray,
I understand this.
My point is that, at some point in time, history doesn't matter any longer.
Hi,
FWIIW I’m wit
> On 6 Jan 2016, at 15:32, Benoit Claise wrote:
>
> Ray,
>
> I understand this.
> My point is that, at some point in time, history doesn't matter any longer.
Hi,
FWIIW I’m with Ray on this one - I think it is important to retain the full
title.
I think the change of SHOULD to MUST for TCP
> On 6 Jan 2016, at 21:58, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> Hiya,
>>
>> Speaking for myself I don’t see this as the solution to managing DTLS
>> sessions, I think that would be better handled with a TLS extension.
>
> Yes, that's the obvious answer, and a not bad answer. Did the
> dnsop WG (or dp
15 matches
Mail list logo
