from ietf68 minutes,
> draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt
> Volunteers for compiling a list of services to be addressed:
> - Kazunori Fujiwara
I could not do this work yet.
I have a comment for the draft.
Section 3.2 mentions thousands of zones synchronization.
But there is a company w
--On 23. juli 2007 23:34 +0900 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from ietf68 minutes,
draft-regnauld-ns-communication-00.txt
Volunteers for compiling a list of services to be addressed:
- Kazunori Fujiwara
I could not do this work yet.
I have a comment for the draft.
Section 3.2 mentions thous
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but I do not understand
>
> in what context is 277 operations per second a large number?
> AFAIK, a REFRESH operations (for no zone change) is a lightweight operation.
Its a fairly high number of transactions per second for D
Folks,
From what I've seen, there have not been any postings on this wg topic.
Nonetheless since we are in the midst of IETF week, I'd like to ask whether
anyone has interest in talking about this sometime during the week.
d/
Dave Crocker wrote:
> This is revised based on original presenta
Dear colleagues,
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 01:58:37PM -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Nonetheless since we are in the midst of IETF week, I'd like to ask whether
> anyone has interest in talking about this sometime during the week.
I think the draft is probably needed, because we already see two
dif
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I will note that I sort of hate the approach outlined in section 3 in
the draft as written. In the current form, we have a table that
either has a value in the subordinate field, _or_ a value in the RR
field; in either case, the other field has to be NULL. If I put on m
For the record in this WGLC, I support the draft.
My comments (editorial matters only) at:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05558.html
// Kenji Rikitake
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 07:22:26PM +0200,
Peter Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 30 lines which said:
> We will have one more version of the draft to incorporate current
> and WGLC text changes and NITS review, the -08 to go to our AD.
I did not see opinions about the issues I raise
