Re: [DNSOP] new DNS classes

i think avoiding icann is a red herring. if the draft in question had done a decent job of exploring the taxa of needs for name resolution outside of the 'normal' topology, we would have the start of a base on which to discuss this. randy ___ DNSOP mai

Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

(not sure which hat. Probably doc shepherd.) > On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > > On Jul 4, 2017, at 3:39 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> is there a companion document with the list of benefits/advantages? or >> is thins just one of those ietf documents from on high meant to kill >> som

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-03.txt

On 04/07/2017 00:22, Richard Gibson wrote: > I looked over this draft in detail, and found a handful of ambiguous > points ("Clarifications" and "Potentially Missing Data" below). But more > importantly, it is very close to defining a format that could replace > much of my organization's in-house t

Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

--On Wednesday, July 05, 2017 8:01 AM -0400 Suzanne Woolf wrote: > (not sure which hat. Probably doc shepherd.) >... >> This is a very good question. We weren't asked to answer >> that question, so we didn't. It is assumed throughout the >> document that various proponents of special use doma

Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

Been trying to figure out where to insert this. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sullivan-dns-class-useless-03 Abstract Domain Name System Resource Records are identified in part by their class. The class field is not effective, and it is not used the way it appears to have been inten

[DNSOP] draft-sullivan-dns-class-useless (was Re: new DNS classes)

Hi Mark, On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:33:15AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote: > > draft-sullivan-dns-class-useless has lots provably invalid assumptions > in it that it is worthless in determining if new classes could be > deployed. What are the "lots of provably invalid assumptions in it"? As far as

[DNSOP] Warren Kumari's Recuse on draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-07: (with COMMENT)

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-07: Recuse When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https:/

Re: [DNSOP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-03.txt

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Jim Hague wrote: > Timestamps, on the other hand, I always regarded as a basic data type, > so naturally a structure. Plus, of course, there's one per > query/response item, so in a block the size savings are in the 10-15k > bytes region, which is rather more signi

[DNSOP] requesting WGLC for 5011-security-considerations

Folks, We believe that the latest draft-rfc5011-security-considerations document is ready for WGLC, and would like the chairs to start that process unless anyone thinks it's not ready to go forward. In particular, we believe all outstanding issues with it have been resolved. Objections? -- We

Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-07: (with COMMENT)

Spencer, not to respond to all your comments right now, but just to point this out: the list of problems is not claimed to be correct. It is claimed to be the list of problems that people have asserted exist. I do not agree that all the problems listed are problems, nor I think does anyone e

Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

On Jul 4, 2017, at 10:23 PM, Matthew Kerwin wrote: > Hi, I'm jumping in at a random time with a possibly dumb question, but > the talk of and tuples got me wondering > about representation in general, and URLs in particular. This is an interesting topic, but out of scope for the document being

Re: [DNSOP] requesting WGLC for 5011-security-considerations

On 5 Jul 2017, at 10:11, Wes Hardaker wrote: Folks, We believe that the latest draft-rfc5011-security-considerations document is ready for WGLC, and would like the chairs to start that process unless anyone thinks it's not ready to go forward. In particular, we believe all outstanding issues w

Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

> On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:23 PM, Matthew Kerwin wrote: > > On 5 July 2017 at 13:19, Mark Andrews wrote: >> >> In message >> , >> Matthew Kerwin writes: >>> On 5 July 2017 at 10:02, Mark Andrews wrote: Who owns a name is a different question to what machines serve the tuple and

Re: [DNSOP] requesting WGLC for 5011-security-considerations

Could you hold off on this for another week? The revised version dropped last week and I've been on travel and enjoying the holiday and haven't had a chance to review the changes. Thanks - Mike On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 13:11 Wes Hardaker wrote: > > Folks, > > We believe that the latest draft-rfc

Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Ted, On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > Spencer, not to respond to all your comments right now, but just to point > this out: the list of problems is not claimed to be correct. It is > claimed to be the list of problems that people have asserted exist. I do > not agree t

Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Hi, Ted, On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Ted Lemon > wrote: Spencer, not to respond to all your comments right now, but just to point this out: the list of problems is not claimed to be correct. It is claimed to be the list of problems that peop

[DNSOP] Alissa Cooper's Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-07: (with COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-07: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://ww

Re: [DNSOP] requesting WGLC for 5011-security-considerations

"Paul Hoffman" writes: > Just a note that the actual filename for the draft is > draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc5011-security-considerations, and it can be found Whoops; thanks Paul. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf

Re: [DNSOP] requesting WGLC for 5011-security-considerations

Michael StJohns writes: > Could you hold off on this for another week? The revised version > dropped last week and I've been on travel and enjoying the holiday and > haven't had a chance to review the changes.   Thanks - Mike FYI, the changes are very small: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=dr

Re: [DNSOP] requesting WGLC for 5011-security-considerations

That's not actually a plus you understand. Mike On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 18:22 Wes Hardaker wrote: > Michael StJohns writes: > > > Could you hold off on this for another week? The revised version > > dropped last week and I've been on travel and enjoying the holiday and > > haven't had a chance

Re: [DNSOP] Minor editorial change to draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps

In message <765a15bf-8505-4470-9628-70ce9665b...@gbiv.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" writes: > > On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:23 PM, Matthew Kerwin = > wrote: > >=20 > > On 5 July 2017 at 13:19, Mark Andrews wrote: > >>=20 > >> In message = > , = > Matthew Kerwin writes: > >>> On 5 July 2017 at 10:02, Mark An

Re: [DNSOP] requesting WGLC for 5011-security-considerations

Michael StJohns writes: > That's not actually a plus you understand.   Mike Sure it is. We're down to the point where large changes aren't needed :-P -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo

[DNSOP] Terry Manderson's No Objection on draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-07: (with COMMENT)

Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to

Re: [DNSOP] new DNS classes

There are changes to the DNS that are practical and those that are not. For better or worse, I can't see any way that teaching DNS to use new classes makes any sense at this point. The only point at which it would have made sense was when internationalization happened. But the path chosen makes mor

Re: [DNSOP] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi, Benoit, On Jul 5, 2017 12:32 PM, "Benoit Claise" wrote: Hi, Hi, Ted, On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > Spencer, not to respond to all your comments right now, but just to point > this out: the list of problems is not claimed to be correct. It is > claimed to be the li