I'm happy to see 3901 being updated and this draft getting updated from list
discussion. Having read through the previous list discussion, I don't have
additional feedback of substance other than "this is worth working on and I
would support adoption if a CfA occurred".
Minor suggested edits: (
mechanism and the conflict resolution guidance that would require.
Thanks,
Tommy
> -Original Message-
> From: Florian Obser
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 7:43 AM
> To: Nick Buraglio
> Cc: dnsop@ietf.org; Jen Linkova ; Tommy Jensen
>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DNSOP
ned to based its reasoning on,
that's a good place to start too (I note the markdown didn't survive the
submission and the bulleted lists in the first two paragraphs of section 6 are
not lists, sorry about that).
Thanks,
Tommy
From: Ben Schwartz
Se
nitsky
; Matt Engskow ; Tommy
Jensen
Subject: [EXTERNAL] New Version Notification for draft-tjjk-cared-00.txt
A new version of Internet-Draft draft-tjjk-cared-00.txt has been successfully
submitted by Tommy Jensen and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-tjjk-cared
Revision: 00
T
for those. I certainly have a PREFerence for 8781.
Thanks,
Tommy
From: Brian Candler
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2024 12:21 AM
To: Tommy Jensen ; dnsop@ietf.org
Cc: V6 Ops List
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Re: [EXTERNAL] New Version Notification for
draft-jens-7050-secure-chann
rnet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:37 PM
To: Tommy Jensen
Subject: [EXTERNAL] New Version Notification for
draft-jens-7050-secure-channel-00.txt
A new version of Internet-Draft draft-jens-7050-secure-channel-00.txt has been
successfully submitted by Tommy Jensen and posted to th
> > In favour of adoption. Simple, short and clear document.
> +1
+1
From: DNSOP on behalf of Jim Reid
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 10:08 AM
To: Paul Wouters
Cc: Tim Wicinski ; dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter
The 53U, 53T, 53UT ordering makes more sense to me, since it aligns with the
DoH/DoT alignment of protocol indicator followed by transport indicator
ordering.
From: DNSOP on behalf of Paul Wouters
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 10:29 AM
To: Evan Hunt
Cc: dnsop
Good point ("s/new/other" in my definition of "encrypted DNS"). And I agree,
"encrypted DNS" is a superset of "DoH and DoT" but not the other way around.
Thanks,
Tommy
From: Joe Abley
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 10:24
> I still maintain that having descriptive terms should be preferable
over an abundance of abbreviations, particular in documents. In this
case, why not "classic DNS" or "traditional DNS"? Likewise, "encrypted
DNS" instead of DoTH.
I agree with "encrypted DNS" because that makes the meaning (DoH o
s who aren't
otherwise interested in hosting their own DNS
I don't understand the point you're going for here, or how it relates to the
draft in this thread's subject line.
Thanks,
Tommy
From: Rob Sayre
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 5:10 PM
T
The link you shared indicates the problem is RC4, which was removed from TLS in
1.3 for this very reason. This doesn’t demonstrate TLS 1.3 is vulnerable; it
demonstrates why adopting TLS 1.3 is so important.
Thanks,
Tommy
From: DNSOP on behalf of Rob Sayre
Sent
12 matches
Mail list logo
