On 12/07/2013 12:02 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> Christian,
>
> On Dec 6, 2013, at 1:43 PM, Christian Grothoff wrote:
>> I meant 'management' in the sense of assigning names under .alt to
>> groups/organizations/software. We'd effectively need another process to
>> decide who gets to implement a me
Greetings,
We're kicking off the Working Group Last call on Adding 100.64.0.0/10
prefixes to IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zones Registry. The author believe
that this document has addressed all the issues raised on the document.
The latest version of the draft is available at:
http://www.ietf.o
Greetings,
We're kicking off the Working Group Last call on using AS112 Redirection
using DNAME. The authors believe that this document has addressed all
the issues raised on the document. The latest version of the draft is
available at:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-as112-dn
All,
I've submitted our time request for London, and I upped the time to 2
hours. Between running into the hard limits the past two meetings, and
our AD's is willing to allow me to extend DNSOP to include other
relevant DNS conversations (since they will all involve operations at
some point).
I have read this document a believe it is ready to move to IETF last call. If
only all our operational documents were as uninteresting as this...
--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Alas, this document is definitely not ready for publication as an RFC. It still
is very unclear which parts are restatements of RFC 6304, which are changes,
and which are speculative. Appendix B makes an attempt to make this clearer,
but fails spectacularly by saying that Appendix B should be re
On 2013-12-05, at 07:15, Chris Thompson wrote:
> On Dec 4 2013, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> [...snip...]
>> There was at least one study commissioned by ICANN on the prudence of
>> provisioning DNAME RRs in the root zone that concluded that there was
>> no obvious danger, but remember that any novel R
Hi Tim,
On 2013-12-07, at 08:59, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> We're kicking off the Working Group Last call on Adding 100.64.0.0/10
> prefixes to IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zones Registry. The author believe that
> this document has addressed all the issues raised on the document. The
> latest version
On 2013-12-07, at 11:33, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Alas, this document is definitely not ready for publication as an RFC. It
> still is very unclear which parts are restatements of RFC 6304, which are
> changes, and which are speculative. Appendix B makes an attempt to make this
> clearer, but fa
Hi,
On Dec 7, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> We're kicking off the Working Group Last call on Adding 100.64.0.0/10
> prefixes to IPv4 Locally-Served DNS Zones Registry. The author believe that
> this document has addressed all the issues raised on the document. The
> latest version o
10 matches
Mail list logo
