Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Take a look at Section
> 5 of the draft and you will see a rather long list of specs that have
> defined their own registries for this namespace, either implicitly or
> explicitly.
That's definitely what we should not do.
> It's difficult to imagine a stronger basis for
Dear WG,
Howdy.
On 7/19/2011 12:05 PM, Peter Koch wrote:
So, here are topics that have been raised in the recent or not so
recent past, in no particular order:
Some years ago, this working group formally took on a task that it did not
pursue, concerning the emerging convention of using nod
Dear WG,
With four, admittedly long lasting, drafts now published as RFCs
and several others in or approaching WGLC, it is time to look at
the remaining action items or milestones for the DNSOP WG.
Your chairs would like to devote some time in Quebec to gauge
interest in future work. We'd like to
