Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

2015-11-03 Thread Stephane Bortzmeyer
On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:39:58PM +0900, Tim WIcinski wrote a message of 126 lines which said: > this is not so much a DNSOP document, but something that should be > in an area where they need a better understanding of DNS (*cough* > appsawg *cough*). > > How does the working group think of

Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

2015-11-03 Thread Edward Lewis
On 11/3/15, 18:13, "DNSOP on behalf of Suzanne Woolf" wrote: >Agree with Joel here— there’s useful review for it in DNSOP *and* >elsewhere IMHO. > >Ed? The document has three goals: 1) Define Domain Names 2) Develop "helper" terminology to go along with the concept 3) Perhaps, if this is not inc

Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

2015-11-03 Thread Suzanne Woolf
Agree with Joel here— there’s useful review for it in DNSOP *and* elsewhere IMHO. Ed? > On Nov 3, 2015, at 3:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: > > I think the dicussion of names is useful and insightful. > > we can find a home for it I'm pretty sure but I'm happy to see > discussion of it. > > joel

Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

2015-11-03 Thread joel jaeggli
I think the dicussion of names is useful and insightful. we can find a home for it I'm pretty sure but I'm happy to see discussion of it. joel On 11/3/15 4:39 PM, Tim WIcinski wrote: > > I spoke to Ed this morning during breakfast, and we discussed his > draft. I do like this as a well written

Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

2015-11-02 Thread Alain Durand
Ed's document is not about DNS but about names. That is actually the whole point. So, IMHO, it should not be redirected to a wg that needs better understanding of DNS but to a wg that needs better understanding of names... I could also argue that this argument also applies to the discussion on

Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

2015-11-02 Thread Tim WIcinski
I spoke to Ed this morning during breakfast, and we discussed his draft. I do like this as a well written read through the history of namespace and domains, but I feel (and I think Ed even would agree) this is not so much a DNSOP document, but something that should be in an area where they n

Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

2015-10-31 Thread Edward Lewis
DNSOP [mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Harold Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 9:34 AM To: Edward Lewis Cc: dnsop Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01 On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Edward Lewis mailto:edward.le...@icann.org>> wrote: A while back I floated a draft a

Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

2015-10-30 Thread Darcy Kevin (FCA)
[mailto:dnsop-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Harold Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 9:34 AM To: Edward Lewis Cc: dnsop Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01 On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Edward Lewis mailto:edward.le...@icann.org>> wrote: A while back I floated a draft across this mail li

Re: [DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

2015-10-30 Thread Bob Harold
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Edward Lewis wrote: > A while back I floated a draft across this mail list and got (what I > think) is sufficient (perhaps not the right word) feedback from the WG. I > updated the document and resubmitted. FWIW, this is the document link: > https://tool

[DNSOP] Draft -domain-names-01

2015-10-30 Thread Edward Lewis
A while back I floated a draft across this mail list and got (what I think) is sufficient (perhaps not the right word) feedback from the WG. I updated the document and resubmitted. FWIW, this is the document link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lewis-domain-names-01 I'm not even askin