I see a message on dnsop from you proposing a bunch of things
including "rationalizing" names, and comments from Andrew and Peter
saying they like that approach.
I am not finding any message from me with that word in it, so I've no idea
what you are referring to.
Perhaps the link you sent
On 3/23/2018 11:02 AM, John Levine wrote:
I see a message on dnsop from you proposing a bunch of things
including "rationalizing" names, and comments from Andrew and Peter
saying they like that approach.
I am not finding any message from me with that word in it, so I've no
idea what you are r
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 06:02:47PM +, John Levine wrote:
>
> I see a message on dnsop from you proposing a bunch of things
> including "rationalizing" names, and comments from Andrew and Peter
> saying they like that approach.
I think, to be clear, what I was saying I liked was the document
s
In article <6d3c77a3-2326-a4b4-1e99-50fe4647d...@dcrocker.net> you write:
>It occurs to me that some folk might not have a perfect memory of a
>dnsop working group agreement from Aug, 2017. So here's a tag into it:
>
>https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg20708.html
I see a
On 3/21/2018 12:08 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Possibly related to this question: what is the relationship of this draft to
RFC 6335?
Can separate registries be 'related'? Anyhow, I think these aren't.
Perhaps you could ask a more detailed question?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetW
Dave,
> On 21 Mar 2018, at 18:36, John R. Levine wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> I prefer to take as simple an approach as possible: have a single registry
>> control all allocations out of a name space.
>
> It's a little late for that. The SRV RFC was published 18 yea
On 3/21/2018 11:17 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Much of the discussion of the current topic -- previously and now -- has
tended to stray from the pragmatics, whereas that is the only thinking
driving my concerns and suggestions. In particular, some people seem to
have a mystical -- or equally impra
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, Dave Crocker wrote:
I prefer to take as simple an approach as possible: have a single registry
control all allocations out of a name space.
It's a little late for that. The SRV RFC was published 18 years ago.
How exactly do you plan to grandfather all of the existing SRV
On 3/21/2018 8:03 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
dave, i wasn't going to reply at all, since your snark is a turn-off.
Snark? You think my note was "crotchety, snappish; sarcastic,
impertinent, or irreverent"? It wasn't any of those things, though
perhaps it's interesting you thought it was. But on
John C Klensin wrote:
...
There is a strong case to be made that the introduction of the
underscore convention was a kludge that violated fundamental
design assumptions of the DNS and that it was added without
considering, much less acting on, what other changes would be
needed to support it s
dave, i wasn't going to reply at all, since your snark is a turn-off.
however, john decided to make this thing real, so now i'm stuck with it.
srv has a registry. that's working. that need not change.
adding another registry for other rr types who want to have well known
underscored names will
--On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 06:05 -0700 Dave Crocker
wrote:
> On 3/21/2018 4:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>
Harmonization for the sake of harmonization is bad, and
very little Internet System technology gets it. Just do
new stuff better.
>>
>>> I agree completely. So please
On 3/21/2018 4:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
Harmonization for the sake of harmonization is bad, and very little
Internet System technology gets it. Just do new stuff better.
I agree completely. So please forgive my not understanding how your
first and third comments are relevant to the curre
13 matches
Mail list logo
