Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-ttl-04: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 2:35 PM Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2021, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>
> > That's essentially correct. A client that only supports the default
> ALPN has no use for the "alpn" SvcParam.
>
> Does the "default ALPN" mean "no support for the ALPN extension" ? Or
> does it
On Tue, 18 May 2021, Ben Schwartz wrote:
That's essentially correct. A client that only supports the default ALPN has no use for
the "alpn" SvcParam.
Does the "default ALPN" mean "no support for the ALPN extension" ? Or
does it mean "Supports ALPN with the default " ? If so, what is
Hello Rob,
On Tue, 2021-05-18 at 08:04 -0700, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote:
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for this document.
>
> Regarding:
>
Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-nsec-ttl-04: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to h
On Mon, 2021-05-17 at 22:42 -0700, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
wrote:
>
> Please make RFC 8174 a normative reference rather than an informative one.
> (RFC 2119 already is, but the two documents together make up BCP 14, so I
> don't
> think you can split them as was done here.)
Of course.
Hello Roman,
On Mon, 2021-05-17 at 07:50 -0700, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
> --
> COMMENT:
> --
>
> Thank to Tiru Reddy for the SECDIR review.
>
> Sec
