On 8/16/16, 08:57, "DNSOP on behalf of Tim Wicinski" wrote:
I've only read briefly the drafts and see hints that issues I raise below are
still lingering.
There's no denying that there's a desire to solve "this". I keep in mind that
this isn't the first time there's been a desire to add this
Patrik,
> On Aug 9, 2016, at 12:06 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
> On 4 Aug 2016, at 18:55, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
For URI records RFC 7553 says they're either named the same as SRV
records, or they use enumservice names from the Enumservice
>>>
>>> Declaring a namespace as the union
All
The WGLC last call for resolver-priming has concluded. There was a solid
number of good reviews, and no reasons to not publish this.
I want to thank everyone who gave reviews and feedback. I'm going to go
over the list with the author(s) and make sure everything was covered.
thanks
tim
At Wed, 10 Aug 2016 16:54:39 -0700,
"Paul Hoffman" wrote:
> [[ A month later, we're still eager to hear responses to the draft. We
> got a few that we have incorporated for a new version, but want to be
> sure we're on the right track before we move ahead. ]]
> > We understand that "specify more
On 8/19/16, 13:24, "william manning" wrote:
>First off, I take exception to the use of the word "dangerous". AXFR isn't
>dangerous, it's just the best way to do the job. If there are other query
>types that are better (or only) can be done over TCP, then so be it. But they
>aren't per se da
In message <99ce1d3e-18a0-42e6-949f-e78995afc...@icann.org>, Edward Lewis write
s:
> On 8/16/16, 08:57, "DNSOP on behalf of Tim Wicinski" on behalf of tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've only read briefly the drafts and see hints that issues I raise below
> are still lingering.
>
> There's no de
On 17 Aug 2016, at 9:45, 神明達哉 wrote:
I've read draft-ietf-dnsop-resolver-priming-07. I think this is a
useful document and is almost ready for publication.
Thanks for the careful review.
But there seem
to be a few non-trivial issues that may need to be addressed.
Specific comments:
- Sect
