On 19 Jun 2024, at 22:56, Tim Wicinski wrote:On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 2:49 PM Paul Vixie 40redbarn@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:This document makes the argument that because of how things work at the
moment, we should limit our aspirations.
I completely disagree.I agree with Paul. We deserve nice t
Paul,
On 20/06/2024 03.31, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024, Tim Wicinski wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 2:49 PM Paul Vixie
wrote:
This document makes the argument that because of how things work
at the
moment, we should limit our aspirations.
I completely disagree
Paul Wouters wrote on 2024-06-19 18:31:
...
I also feel that a suggestion like "Switch UDP for TCP or QUIC" is not
really a decision that should be made by a v6ops document, but by the
DNSOP WG.
Paul
i'm pretty sure DNS-over-UDP packet size on IPv6 is likewise something a
v6ops document sh
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024, Tim Wicinski wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 2:49 PM Paul Vixie
wrote:
This document makes the argument that because of how things work at the
moment, we should limit our aspirations.
I completely disagree.
I agree with Paul. We deserve nice things - we
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 2:49 PM Paul Vixie wrote:
> This document makes the argument that because of how things work at the
> moment, we should limit our aspirations.
>
> I completely disagree.
>
I agree with Paul. We deserve nice things - we may not be there today, but
we should strive to get
This document makes the argument that because of how things work at the
moment, we should limit our aspirations.
I completely disagree.
re:
Florian Obser wrote on 2024-06-19 01:11:
Take note of the intended status. I thought that to be... ambitious ;)
--
P Vixie
_
Take note of the intended status. I thought that to be... ambitious ;)
--
In my defence, I have been left unsupervised.
___
DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
