I would absolutely agree that DNSOP is the wrong place to try and
settle this problem because the problem is inherently about policy
decisions taken in a different place in process, and decided in a
different way. The IAB should be told to get the conversation rolling
on what they want, architectur
On 09/12/2016 11:57 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
> 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 : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 08:19:17AM -0400,
Tim Wicinski wrote
a message of 31 lines which said:
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for:
> "Aggressive use of NSEC/NSEC3"
> draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse
I like the basic idea and I think the document is good but I would not
> On 25 Sep 2016, at 17:25, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
>>
>> This label is intended to be used as the final (rightmost) label
>
> No. It is rightmost only in LTR scripts. "final" is correct,
> "rightmost" isn't. Please delete it.
The original text is correct and doesn’t need fixing. Well, a
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
We could -- it is entirely possible that this is not a solvable
problem -- however, before we can make that determination, and even
more importantly, before we can clearly communicate that to the rest
of the IETF / IESG / we need to agree on what
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:57:05AM -0700,
internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote
a message of 48 lines which said:
> Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
> Authors : Warren Kumari
> Andrew Sullivan
> Filename: draft-ietf-
Stephane, have you read draft-tldr-sutld-ps? I would be curious to know
if you disagree with the specific set of problems enumerated there; I
realize that you don't believe that there is a problem that motivates a
change; my question is, do you agree or disagree that the things described
in the d
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 07:57:26PM +,
Viktor Dukhovni wrote
a message of 73 lines which said:
> This would I believe cause problems if one then concludes that the
> subtree below the QNAME is absent.
For the record, I agree with Robert Edmonds: this case is well covered
in the current dra
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:46:36AM -0400,
Warren Kumari wrote
a message of 115 lines which said:
> We could -- it is entirely possible that this is not a solvable
> problem -- however, before we can make that determination, and even
> more importantly, before we can clearly communicate that to
[If you don't enjoy byzantine discussions, with a lot of
chapter-and-verse mentions of RFCs, please skip the thread.]
I've been directed recently to RFC 4035 and there is a question I would
like to ask about its handling of ENTs.
Section 3.1.3 says:
No Data: The zone contains RRsets that exac
10 matches
Mail list logo
