On Mar 26, 2017, at 10:47 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> If there is a technical requirement for a label, it has to be
> very very strong to require a new reference in the "." anchored
> namespace.
But the reason you feel this way is that such allocations would preclude gTLD
allocations. gTLD
I really have a problem with "that it is not representative of what is
happening" -I mis-wrote to Ray, regarding how I believed he was
characterizing OpenWRT code. How am I meant to interpret what you
wrote here? Why am I not expected to respond, that is squatting in the
face of a discussion about
On Mar 26, 2017, at 9:51 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> I was thinking about the 'because its the (D)arpa" opposition when I
> said that. I think *that* stated reason, is mostly now, a phantom.
> Maybe I'm wrong on that too. Maybe its a giant political layer9
> football which will come back to hau
I was thinking about the 'because its the (D)arpa" opposition when I
said that. I think *that* stated reason, is mostly now, a phantom.
Maybe I'm wrong on that too. Maybe its a giant political layer9
football which will come back to haunt us, forever. Given how much of
the planet happily goes into
On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:36 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> Its only my personal opinion, but I think the opposition to use of
> .ARPA is almost entirely fictive at this point.
I take it that since this is just your personal opinion, we need not discuss it
any further?
Forgive me, but I do not thin
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 7:54 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 26, 2017, 5:37 PM -0700, George Michaelson , wrote:
>
> In no sense is the domain solely used or intended for PTR requests,
>
>
> Is anyone claiming this? If so, that'd be really silly given the contents of
> the .ARPA zone is:
Hi,
On Mar 26, 2017, 5:37 PM -0700, George Michaelson , wrote:
> In no sense is the domain solely used or intended for PTR requests,
Is anyone claiming this? If so, that'd be really silly given the contents of
the .ARPA zone is:
as112.arpa.
e164.arpa.
in-addr-servers.arpa.
in-addr.arpa.
ip6-se
Its only my personal opinion, but I think the opposition to use of
.ARPA is almost entirely fictive at this point. In no sense is the
domain solely used or intended for PTR requests, and I have
successfully operated domains which vest A, and TXT records in
the zone. Its just a string of chara
+1 to all from frmr usgovie. We ain't that clever.
On Wednesday, March 22, 2017, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> > On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf > wrote:
> >
> > RFC 3172 was written in 2001…
>
> RFC 3172 was an attempt to rewrite history and contrive an acronym:
> Address and Routing Parame
In article you write:
>> the last updated was made in 2013, right?
>
>The text of the document did not change. The date appears to be an artifact of
>a change to the datatracker
>database or tools, not the content or status of the underlying document.
Probably RFC 7050 which established ipv4only
> On Mar 26, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Ozgur Karatas wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> 22.03.2017, 10:05, "Jim Reid" :
>>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>>>
>>> RFC 3172 was written in 2001…
>
> the last updated was made in 2013, right?
The text of the document did not change. The date appe
Hi all,
Our meeting is Monday this time:
DNSOP 13:00-15:00, room Zurich D
If you’re presenting, your slide deck should be visible at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/98/materials. If you sent us slides and
they’re not there, please remind us ASAP; if you didn’t send us slides, plea
The following errata report has been verified for RFC8027,
"DNSSEC Roadblock Avoidance".
--
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=8027&eid=4877
--
Status: Verified
Type: Tech
Hello,
22.03.2017, 10:05, "Jim Reid" :
>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 14:53, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>>
>> RFC 3172 was written in 2001…
the last updated was made in 2013, right?
Regards,
Ozgur
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailm
14 matches
Mail list logo
