Dear WG,
> Rob and I will coordinate with the bmwg chair on the "perf & measurement" part
> of the charter and then issue a WGLC, after which we'll enter negotiations
> with
> the AD(s) regarding deliverables and milestones.
just FYI, this is still ongoing. Nothing controversial, but since we'r
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:33:20PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> Are you using TCP DNS? Most people don't use TCP DNS. That is changing,
> though. I guess I don't recall who your work for, or what kind of
Fwiw, I tried running TCP only some weeks ago, but you don't get far that
way if you actuall
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, bill fumerola wrote:
> if i felt the use of anycast by root server operators is causing
> instability, i would take that up with the individual root server
> operator(s) that i was experiencing instability with. but i'm not.
Are you using TCP DNS? Most people don't use TCP D
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 06:52:44PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> What clause would DNS Root Anycast stability fall under?
anycast has so much more to do with routing than dns. dns just happens
to be an often used consumer of anycast. there are others. it seems
more appropriate to centralize proble
What clause would DNS Root Anycast stability fall under?
--Dean
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Peter Koch wrote:
> Dean,
>
> > > If you could support this observation by tangible textual reference, that
> > > would
> > > be appreciated. As a side note, there is an IETF liaison to ICANN,
Dean,
> > If you could support this observation by tangible textual reference, that
> > would
> > be appreciated. As a side note, there is an IETF liaison to ICANN,
> > independent
> > of whatever WG charter.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean to dispute. The text of the charter I quoted
> cites "T
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:30:56AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
[...]
> could be altered slightly to
>
> The DNS Operations (DNSOP) Working Group will develop and review
> guidelines for the correct, efficient and secure configuration,
> administration, and operation of DNS a
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Peter Koch wrote:
> Dean,
>
> > So root and gTLD DNS server operations supervision is off the charter?
>
> to the extent that is has never been there, yes.
>
> > It used to be the first item. This appears to affect ISOC IETF
> > commitments to ICANN to provide this techn
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 11-Mar-2008, at 10:37, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> > So root and gTLD DNS server operations supervision is off the charter?
>
> I'm not sure it was ever on the charter.
>
> The paragraph you quoted seems to suggest that the attention of the
> worki
On 11-Mar-2008, at 10:37, Dean Anderson wrote:
> So root and gTLD DNS server operations supervision is off the charter?
I'm not sure it was ever on the charter.
It is in the current charter ...
jaap
___
DNSOP mailing
Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:53:54AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> The paragraph you quoted seems to suggest that the attention of the
> working group is equally-focussed on root, TLD and all other
> nameservers, whether authority-only servers or not.
While that's true, the olde
Dean,
> So root and gTLD DNS server operations supervision is off the charter?
to the extent that is has never been there, yes.
> It used to be the first item. This appears to affect ISOC IETF
> commitments to ICANN to provide this technical role.
If you could support this observation by tan
On 11-Mar-2008, at 10:37, Dean Anderson wrote:
> So root and gTLD DNS server operations supervision is off the charter?
I'm not sure it was ever on the charter.
The paragraph you quoted seems to suggest that the attention of the
working group is equally-focussed on root, TLD and all other
n
So root and gTLD DNS server operations supervision is off the charter?
It used to be the first item. This appears to affect ISOC IETF
commitments to ICANN to provide this technical role.
I'm not certain I'm against that--I just want to clarify that this isn't
an oversight.
1. Define the proces
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 04:05:14AM +0100,
Peter Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 57 lines which said:
> 7) establish terminology and methodology for performance measurements
>of servers, resolvers or the service as such.
Warning: for other protocols, this work is apparently done
Dear WG,
after several attempts, here is the most recent version of the new DNSOP
charter to be discussed in tomorrow's WG session:
-
The DNS Operations (DNSOP) Working Group will develop and review guidelines
for the co
16 matches
Mail list logo
