I have read through the draft. Looks good.
Some wording suggestions:
Section 1.1:
By way
of analogy, negative trust anchors stop validation of the
authentication chain. Instead, the resolver sends the response as if
the zone is unsigned and does not set the AD bit.
I suggest:
I
I think the draft is just about ready for publication as well.
On May 5, 2015, at 5:53 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> This document has progressed very well and is nearly ready for publication.
>
> Related to an earlier thread about intended status: "Informational" is most
> appropriate here becaus
[meta comment]
I will be traveling for DNS-OARC, RIPE and another meeting starting this
afternoon. I wanted to mention this so that y'all don't think I'm ignoring
your comments - I really appreciate all feedback, and will integrate
comments in the next couple of days (I like to rev the doc even du
Warren and Tim,
I support the publishing of this document subject to incorporating the various
comments I’ve seen here on that list. I had a couple of specific points but
they seem to have been covered by others, so…
On May 6, 2015, at 9:46 AM, Warren Kumari
mailto:war...@kumari.net>> wrote:
I have never heard of ARPA being treated as a subclass of gTLD.
Regards,
-drc
> On May 4, 2015, at 4:48 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 11:45:09AM +, Edward Lewis wrote:
>> ccTLD and gTLD, but those are examples. ("into ccTLDs, gTLDs, and other
>> categories;")[0]
>
At Tue, 5 May 2015 17:06:04 -0400,
Warren Kumari wrote:
> ... and now I'm replying to the rest of the comments.
Thanks, I've confirmed that my major and minor points are addressed in
the 05 version. So I'm now basically fine with shipping it.
Some non-blocking comments follow...
> I've integr
Dear colleagues,
It’s taken a little longer than we initially expected, but we’ve been working
on agenda and discussion details for the interim WG meeting next week.
Logistics details will follow shortly, but we have a webex URL graciously
provided by the IETF secretariat.
We have the followi
At Fri, 1 May 2015 23:21:30 +,
Evan Hunt wrote:
> The chief difference between the two is the presence of an error code field
> in Eastlake cookies; Andrews found it redundant/unnecessary (as discussed
> in https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg13984.html).
> The hope was tha
It appeared from me from the meeting in Dallas and the sparse list
discussion is while the error codes would seem "interesting/useful",
there is no good use case to show usefulness, which is my Mr. Andrews
did not implement them.
I was approaching this (and as we approach the idea of WGLC) t
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 11:19:07AM -0700, 神明達哉 wrote:
> Can someone explain why we'd need the separate error codes based on
> the position of supporting them (i.e, not to persuade others on
> dropping them)? msg13984.html was basically written to argue against
> them, so it could potentially and u
Since I already said I was ok with the addition, can we just stipulate that I'm
wrong and move along with it?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
> On May 6, 2015, at 17:06, David Conrad wrote:
>
> I have never heard of ARPA being treated as a subclass of gTLD.
>
> Reg
This turned out to be quite long... I hope it is useful!
An alphabetical index would be helpful, as would making the formatting
of paragraphs more distinct depending on whether they start with a
definition or not (e.g. hangText in xml2rfc markup). It would also be
good to avoid definitions in the
On 04-05-15 16:32, Casey Deccio wrote:
> I am still a bit uncomfortable with the -01 definition of glue,
> specifically the reference to RFC 2181. I think the reference to RFC
> 2181 is useful and necessary, but I hesitate to think that RFC 2181's
> use of glue is a redefinition that is intended t
13 matches
Mail list logo
