On 9/24/19 12:36 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Petr Špaček wrote:
>> IMHO the most useful information is dichotomy:
>>
>> a) the problem is local (= call network admin/ISP/telco)
>>
>> b) the problem is remote (= call your bank because their internetbanking
>> broke and _do not your bother ISP_).
> I th
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 9:18 AM Erik Nygren wrote:
> Following discussions around the "HTTPSSVC" record proposal in Montreal
> with the DNSOP, HTTP and TLS WGs, we've updated what was previously
> "draft-nygren-httpbis-httpssvc-03". The new version is
> "draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-00". T
Following discussions around the "HTTPSSVC" record proposal in Montreal
with the DNSOP, HTTP and TLS WGs, we've updated what was previously
"draft-nygren-httpbis-httpssvc-03". The new version is
"draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc-00". This incorporates much of the
feedback from the WG discussions
Petr Špaček wrote:
>
> IMHO the most useful information is dichotomy:
>
> a) the problem is local (= call network admin/ISP/telco)
>
> b) the problem is remote (= call your bank because their internetbanking
> broke and _do not your bother ISP_).
I think that's helpful.
There's an interesting ca
On 31. 08. 19 1:27, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Shane Kerr writes:
>
>> While I thought the RCODE linkage was a bit clunky, the idea of having
>> some structure to the response codes was actually kind of nice, for
>> the same reason that the 1xx, 2xx, 3xx, 4xx, 5xx status codes were
>> nice. I think th
