Peter van Dijk wrote on 2019-01-21 11:22:
Hello,
On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:55, Benno Overeinder wrote:
...
This starts a Call for Adoption for: draft-song-atr-large-resp
I oppose adoption. ...
likewise. we should not avoid fragmentation in this particular way. that
is, we can use persistent
On 21-01-19 11:22, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> I oppose adoption. Any implementation of this draft will actively hurt the
> DNS and the Internet, and thus publication as an RFC will actively hurt the
> DNS and the Internet.
I agree with Peter. This workaround does more harm than good and should
no
+1. I we should not adopt this draft for all the reasons all ready presented in
the thread and also the draft text regarding "moving all DNS over TCP”.
regards
John
On 21 Jan 2019, at 10:41, Ralf Weber wrote:
> Moin!
>
> On 21 Jan 2019, at 11:26, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>>> On 21 Jan 2019, at 11:22
On 21. 01. 19 11:34, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>
>> On 21 Jan 2019, at 10:26, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>>
>> We can’t be removing EDNS workarounds and at the same time slap another
>> workaround into the DNS.
>
> +1
>
> I think the WG should drop this draft.
+1, I also oppose adoption of this draft.
So
Moin!
On 21 Jan 2019, at 11:26, Ondřej Surý wrote:
On 21 Jan 2019, at 11:22, Peter van Dijk
wrote:
Please do not adopt.
+1 to everything that Peter said. I’ve been opposing ATR draft from
the very beginning. We can’t be removing EDNS workarounds and at
the same time slap another workarou
> On 21 Jan 2019, at 10:26, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>
> We can’t be removing EDNS workarounds and at the same time slap another
> workaround into the DNS.
+1
I think the WG should drop this draft.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.
> On 21 Jan 2019, at 11:22, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Hello,
>
> On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:55, Benno Overeinder wrote:
>
>> We discussed this work (draft -01) in Montreal, and different opinions wrt.
>> adoption were expressed. In the past months, the authors pushed a draft
>>
Hello,
On 18 Jan 2019, at 18:55, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> We discussed this work (draft -01) in Montreal, and different opinions wrt.
> adoption were expressed. In the past months, the authors pushed a draft
> version -02 that addressed and resolved some of these comments.
>
> This starts a C
