All
The call for adoption ended on monday and this has enough consensus to be
adopted by the working group.
tim
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:36 PM Paul Vixie wrote:
> On Friday, 22 May 2020 00:31:34 UTC Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > While I'm not against the clarification, the draft shoul
On Friday, 22 May 2020 00:31:34 UTC Masataka Ohta wrote:
> ...
>
> While I'm not against the clarification, the draft should mention
> that rfc1034 already states:
>
> To fix this problem, a zone contains "glue" RRs which are not
> part of the authoritative data, and are address RRs for t
Tim Wicinski wrote:
This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional
The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional/
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
by DNSOP, and commen
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:50 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
> All,
>
> As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run
> regular call for adoptions over next few months.
> We are looking for *explicit* support for adoption.
>
>
> This starts a Call for Adoption for
> draft-andre
I am supporting adoption.
Yours,
Daniel
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 10:41 AM Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Tim Wicinski writes:
>
> > We are looking for *explicit* support for adoption.
>
> Yes please!
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> USC/ISI
>
> ___
> DNSOP mailing list
>
Tim Wicinski writes:
> We are looking for *explicit* support for adoption.
Yes please!
--
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
In article you write:
>Not convinced the situation should be this black and white - eg perhaps
>partial glue would be enough
>not to require TC=1 or behaviour for resolvers could be a little more advanced
>to try with partial
>before going to TCP.
>
>If my request seem stupid, the draft needs cl
On Monday, 18 May 2020 17:49:04 UTC Tim Wicinski wrote:
> ...
>
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional
>
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional/
>
> Please review this draft to see if you
In favour of adoption but like to see text from both AUTH and recursive
behaviour.
Not convinced the situation should be this black and white - eg perhaps partial
glue would be enough not to require TC=1 or behaviour for resolvers could be a
little more advanced to try with partial before going
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:50 AM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> All,
>
> As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run
> regular call for adoptions over next few months.
> We are looking for *explicit* support for adoption.
>
>
> This starts a Call for Adoption for
> draft-an
All,
As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run
regular call for adoptions over next few months.
We are looking for *explicit* support for adoption.
This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional
The draft is available here:
https://d
11 matches
Mail list logo
