That works for me.
Cheers
Terry
On 4/08/2016, 8:53 AM, "Wes Hardaker" wrote:
>Terry Manderson writes:
>
>> Hi Spencer,
>>
>> On 14/07/2016, 12:57 PM, "Spencer Dawkins at IETF"
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Terry, I like where you're headed, but just to ask the obvious question,
>>>are you thinking the dra
If folks agree that this [RFC6355] adequately serves the registry
function for the
_service, second-level underscore name for SRV and URI, that's fine.
As of Berlin, I thought I heard that there was (still) deviations.
I can believe it, but as I suggested, if that's the case, register the
rog
And now, my response to John's note...
On 8/3/2016 6:58 PM, John Levine wrote:
The services, on the other hand, were thoroughly cleaned up by RFC
6335. It collected a bunch of informal lists into one place, renamed
a few old names with unfortunate characters, and put them into a tidy
and very
John's note...
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Draft of interest in DNSOP:
draft-ietf-dnsop-attrleaf
Date: 4 Aug 2016 01:58:40 -
From: John Levine
To: apps-disc...@ietf.org
CC: dcroc...@bbiw.net
As for the second-level underscore names, I propose that the
Apologies. There was a posting about this draft in apps-discuss and I
made the mistake of responding with a substantive proposal on that list.
John Levine then responded to the substance, also on apps-discuss.
I'm reposting this to dnsop to move the thread over to the correct list.
I'll forw
Terry Manderson writes:
> Hi Spencer,
>
> On 14/07/2016, 12:57 PM, "Spencer Dawkins at IETF"
> wrote:
>>
>>Terry, I like where you're headed, but just to ask the obvious question,
>>are you thinking the draft would, or would not, also contain something
>>like "at the time this document was appro
A request to cancel a meeting session has just been submitted by .
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
We have updated this document with comments and feedback from Berlin.
We have also gone through and done another editing pass, removing a
significant amount of text which was intended to drive the discussion,
but would not really be useful in a published RFC.
Please review it, we believe that the
On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Matthijs Mekking writes:
>
>> 1. In the introduction you mention there is no guidance to how long a
>> DNSKEY must be published before it can be considered accepted. Perhaps
>> there is no implicit guidance in RFC 5011, you should be able to
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations of the IETF.
Title : Aggressive use of NSEC/NSEC3
Authors : Kazunori Fujiwara
Akira Kato
On 8/1/2016 6:00 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
The following draft, authored by Warren and I, might be of interest to
the dnsop crowd:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-00
[it currently does not have a home]
I went off and thought about this for a while and
Matthijs Mekking writes:
> 1. In the introduction you mention there is no guidance to how long a
> DNSKEY must be published before it can be considered accepted. Perhaps
> there is no implicit guidance in RFC 5011, you should be able to derive
> it from the timing parameters defined in that docum
Shane Kerr writes:
> Reading this document it basically seems like the hold-down timer is
> actually a potential for mischief, rather than a good thing.
No, it's a useful thing (per the discussion in 5011 itself as to its
purpose). The problem is that the length hold-down timer (used at the
501
Hi Wes, Warren,
On 08/02/2016 12:00 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>
> The following draft, authored by Warren and I, might be of interest to
> the dnsop crowd:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-00
>
> [it currently does not have a home]
Thanks for this do
Shane,
On 08/03/2016 01:58 PM, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Wes,
>
> At 2016-08-01 15:00:52 -0700
> Wes Hardaker wrote:
>
>> The following draft, authored by Warren and I, might be of interest to
>> the dnsop crowd:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-00
>>
>
Wes,
At 2016-08-01 15:00:52 -0700
Wes Hardaker wrote:
> The following draft, authored by Warren and I, might be of interest to
> the dnsop crowd:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations-00
>
> [it currently does not have a home]
Reading this document it
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the chair's work. If there is any editing suggestion from HTTPbis
WG, please let the us know.
Davey
-邮件原件-
发件人: DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Tim Wicinski
发送时间: 2016年8月3日 16:39
收件人: dnsop
主题: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-song-dns-wireformat-http
Hi
Hi
This adoption period ended a week ago, and between the comments made
when the document was placed in the 'Candidate' phase and the actual
call, it has enough consensus to pass adoption.
One thing of Note: I'm going to begin some conversations with the
HTTPbis working group on this draft
18 matches
Mail list logo
