Re: [DNSOP] [rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org: RFC 7788 on Home Networking Control Protocol]

On Apr 24, 2016, at 7:54 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > Paul. I think actually that we need to start maintaining a list of things > that ought to be explicitly looked for when reviewing documents for > publication, and this sort of thing would be one such. I'll admit some surprise that such a list does

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption for draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse

All The Call for Adoption has passed and there seems to be strong consensus to adopt it. Thanks everyone who has signed up to offer review comments, etc. A new version will be uploaded soon by the authors once they incorporate the comments made during the Call for Adoption. thanks tim On

[DNSOP] dnsop - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 96

A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Tim Wicinski, a Chair of the dnsop working group. - Working Group Name: Domain Name System Operations Area Name: Operations and Management Area Session Requester: Tim Wicinski Numb

[DNSOP] Working Group Last Call draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns

This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns Current versions of the draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-isp-ip6rdns/ Please review the draft and offer relevant comments. Also, if someone feels the document is *not* ready for pu

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-02.txt

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:46:11PM +0200, > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote > a message of 17 lines which said: > > > > Title : NXDOMAIN really means there is nothing > underneath > > > Authors : Stephane

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-nxdomain-cut-02.txt

On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:46:11PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote a message of 17 lines which said: > > Title : NXDOMAIN really means there is nothing underneath > > Authors : Stephane Bortzmeyer > > Shumon Huque > > Filename

Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption for draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:18 AM Tim Wicinski wrote: > This was discussed in Buenos Aires Friday morning, but the sense we > received from the room is that the group should move forward with this > draft. While we like the simplicity of Warren and Geoff's cheese-shop > draft (draft-wkumari-dnsop

[DNSOP] Remote Mentor Needed: Internet Draft Review Team: DNSOP (Spanish)

DNSOP People, We are forming teams of new-ish people to start working together to review drafts and pose comments on the list. The first team to be formed is comprised of 2 people from Argentina / Costa Rica. They wish to study drafts in DNSOP. The discussions will be conducted in Spanish

Re: [DNSOP] [rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org: RFC 7788 on Home Networking Control Protocol]

On 25/04/2016 08:25, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > And, anyway, I cannot blame the homenet people for having "registered" > .home surreptitiously because there is no other open way to do it > "properly". To the best of my knowledge there was no intent to get around 6761 here surreptitiously or ot

Re: [DNSOP] [rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org: RFC 7788 on Home Networking Control Protocol]

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 08:18:35AM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote a message of 36 lines which said: > Either .HOME should not have been mentioned, or it should be added > to the registry. I fully agree it should have used the RFC 6761 framework. Unfortunately, it is closed de facto

Re: [DNSOP] [rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org: RFC 7788 on Home Networking Control Protocol]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 06:01:59PM -0700, David Conrad wrote a message of 70 lines which said: > My gut feeling is that this is a process failure, but will admit > that the whole question is quite unclear given the continuing > uncertainty about the process described in 6761. There is no unce

Re: [DNSOP] [rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org: RFC 7788 on Home Networking Control Protocol]

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 06:20:36PM -0400, Suzanne Woolf wrote a message of 218 lines which said: > It's been surmised now for years that ".home" is widely used in > local DNS configurations, based on the so-called "name collision" > work commissioned by ICANN, and it's hard to see how collisio

Re: [DNSOP] [rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org: RFC 7788 on Home Networking Control Protocol]

On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 01:14:48AM -, John Levine wrote a message of 22 lines which said: > There was some discussion in the IETF of adding those three names to > the RFC 6761 registry, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/ > but it didn't go anywhere, largely

Re: [DNSOP] [rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org: RFC 7788 on Home Networking Control Protocol]

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 09:14:05PM -, John Levine wrote a message of 10 lines which said: > In fairness, .home is just a default. You can set your network to > squat on whatever name you want. Yes, but the entire Homenet effort being made for unmanaged networks, it is safe to assume that