Patrik, I think that it's fairly clear that the authors were assuming that
.home would be documented elsewhere when they wrote that text, so the
problem is simply that they never added a normative reference to the
document describing what .home does, and because of that nobody noticed
that it was b
Noted!
And I saw more email messages on this topic after I wrote this email of mine.
Happy to see not only I "miss" things when being AD :-)
All the best!
Patrik
On 24 Apr 2016, at 15:22, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Patrik, I think that it's fairly clear that the authors were assuming that
> .home
On 23 Apr 2016, at 19:58, Ted Lemon wrote:
Bottom line: this is not actually the intended way things should work
for
naming in homenets, and a lot of people missed it. Sigh.
...for well over a year. You see that exact phrase in the draft over
many revisions. This is a sign that maybe the 6
On 24 Apr 2016, at 16:20, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2016, at 19:58, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> Bottom line: this is not actually the intended way things should work for
>> naming in homenets, and a lot of people missed it. Sigh.
>
> ...for well over a year. You see that exact phrase in the draf
Paul. I think actually that we need to start maintaining a list of things
that ought to be explicitly looked for when reviewing documents for
publication, and this sort of thing would be one such. This is not to say
that it's not a hard problem, though--such a list could easily become
unwieldy.
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Happy to see not only I "miss" things when being AD :-)
>
I think this is one of the hazards of being an AD--you just can't catch
everything, and when you miss something, in retrospect it often seems so
obvious. This is definitely not
Hi,
(no hats)
I had honestly expected the work on the homenet naming architecture to include
a discussion of constraints on the syntax and other characteristics of the
names to be used.
The default set for the homenet namespace in RFC 7788 strikes me as a risky
recommendation from a purely op
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Suzanne Woolf
wrote:
> Using ".home" for homenets is a bad idea, and would have been a bad idea
> even if there was a special use registry entry for it.
>
Yup, no argument here. That's why I used ".homenet" in the homenet naming
architecture... :)
_
> From: Bob Harold
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse/
> I support adoption. Will read and review.
Thanks.
> Section 7.3 concerns me. If the range is expanded enough to be useful,
> would it then allow zone enumeration?
It is true. However, the zone o
On 4/24/16 3:20 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (no hats)
>
> I had honestly expected the work on the homenet naming architecture to
> include a discussion of constraints on the syntax and other
> characteristics of the names to be used.
Personally I see that as part of the design anti-patter
10 matches
Mail list logo
