Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-08: 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 refe
Paul Wouters wrote on 2024-06-19 18:31:
...
I also feel that a suggestion like "Switch UDP for TCP or QUIC" is not
really a decision that should be made by a v6ops document, but by the
DNSOP WG.
Paul
i'm pretty sure DNS-over-UDP packet size on IPv6 is likewise something a
v6ops document sh
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024, Tim Wicinski wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 2:49 PM Paul Vixie
wrote:
This document makes the argument that because of how things work at the
moment, we should limit our aspirations.
I completely disagree.
I agree with Paul. We deserve nice things - we
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-08: Discuss
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
htt
Tim Wicinski has requested publication of draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis-05 as
Best Current Practice on behalf of the DNSOP working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8109bis/
___
DNSOP mail
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 2:49 PM Paul Vixie wrote:
> This document makes the argument that because of how things work at the
> moment, we should limit our aspirations.
>
> I completely disagree.
>
I agree with Paul. We deserve nice things - we may not be there today, but
we should strive to get
This document makes the argument that because of how things work at the
moment, we should limit our aspirations.
I completely disagree.
re:
Florian Obser wrote on 2024-06-19 01:11:
Take note of the intended status. I thought that to be... ambitious ;)
--
P Vixie
_
All
The authors have updated the document based on some early reviews. Since
this is an update from the original RFC7958, I urge folks to take a look at
the diff from the original:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=rfc7958&url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc7958bis-02&difftype=--html
This star
All
We chairs wanted to let the working group know that the authors will be
publishing new versions with the recommendations that there is agreement
on.
They are hoping to get all this done before the document submission
deadline (or maybe that was the chair's optimism).
tim
On Tue, May 14, 202
`To follow up on this discussion, I've talked with Paul and I'm OK with
leaving the last paragraph of section 3.3 in place. Joe Abley has been the
only other outspoken one on this.
I have the feeling/consensus/vibes that the latest version makes the text
clearer. We will discuss this with Warren
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-08: Discuss
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
http
Take note of the intended status. I thought that to be... ambitious ;)
--
In my defence, I have been left unsupervised.
___
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
12 matches
Mail list logo
