[Commenting only on technical aspect of the name structure --
discussion of whether the namespace is cluttered, pretty, intuitive,
etc, are too abstract for me. Not making light of user confusion
issues, just recusing on them.]
I would recommend that you think about how any of these proposed
sche
At Tue, 15 Mar 2016 21:24:53 -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:20:40PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > It's more that the registry failed to scoop up all the old definitions.
>
> Perhaps. The documentation I could find for chaosnet is pretty thin,
> and STD 13 is pretty
At Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:24:57 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <20160316235134.gi1...@mx2.yitter.info>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
> >
> > I'm apparently having a hard time reading this month :-/ But your
> > point makes the problem yet worse, since there's no sense that in
> > the CS net class
At Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:21:06 +, Jim Reid wrote:
>
> Though IIRC, a handful of universities dabbled with Hesiod in the
> late 80s or theresabouts and that used the Chaosnet Class. That
> stuff should be long dead and buried by now.
No, that was yet another class, HS.
Hesiod was an MIT Project
At Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:54:05 +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
> At 2016-04-08 11:28:12 -0300 Ray Bellis wrote:
>
> > May I please remind the WG of draft-bellis-dnsext-multi-qtypes-01
>
> I note that your idea was about 3 years ago. When it was mentioned,
> Alfred Hönes noted his ideas about his presente
At Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:01:20 +, Evan Hunt wrote:
>
> So, unless I'm missing something (certainly more than possible), I don't
> see server workloads or client latency being significantly reduced by the
> deployment of a mechanism like this.
Bingo.
Also keep in mind that A and for the sa
My co-chair has recused himself from WG chair issues related to this
draft, for the obvious reason.
If I understood M. Moreau's message, he is not making any IPR claims
against anything covered in Peter's current draft. Rather, he is:
a) Suggesting that Peter incorporate an idea discussed in o
This is a call to confirm the decision made at the face to face WG
meeting in Prague to adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.
Discussion in Prague showed reasonably strong support and no
objections, but as always, decisions at face to face meetings are
subject to confirmation on the
At Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:18:25 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>
> Is this a genuine invitation for open participation, or are the wg
> activities subject to the arbitrary censorship directive issued earlier
> by you (ref
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05460.html)?
http://
At 07 Jun 2007 05:38:19 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Sullivan) writes:
>
> > I note that in section 2.2.3, we have this:
> >
> >A zone's name servers should be reachable by all IP transport
> >protocols (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) in common use.
> >
> > I have rea
tion to the common affiliation of Mr. Rob Austein and
> Mr. Paul Vixie to ISC, and the subordination relationship that can be
> inferred from Mr. Paul Vixie's position as ISC president.
Paul has never tried to control what I do as DNSOP WG co-chair, and
clearly understands the oblig
At Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:15:04 -0700, I wrote:
>
> This is a call to confirm the decision made at the face to face WG
> meeting in Prague to adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.
> Discussion in Prague showed reasonably strong support and no
> objections, but as always, decisions at fac
At Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:47:57 -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>
> Now that the draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming is adopted as as WG work
> item, and that an IPR disclosure has been filed [2], I would request Rob
> to revisit his (premature) directive regarding this work [3], and
> retract it. Than
At Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:45:25 -0400 (EDT), Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> I would like to have the WG discuss taking up my draft
> (draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status) as a WG document.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Dean
Per Dean's request, I asked those WG participants who were present
at the
[Resending with fixed subject line, sorry for the duplication --sra]
At Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:45:25 -0400 (EDT), Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> I would like to have the WG discuss taking up my draft
> (draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status) as a WG document.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Dean
Per De
The 19 August cut-off having passed, and having seen no support for
WG adoption of draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status from anyone but the
draft's author, the Chicago decision not to adopt the draft stands.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
h
Ok, that's enough.
Todd, you have made your point that you believe you have IPR in this
space. Noted.
Now everyone please stop this, immediately. This is not a forum for
legal debates, let alone insults, and claims that Todd might or
might not have against various implementors are
Having just gone through this entire thread again as prep for
tomorow's WG meeting, I have a few minor comments that attempt to
answer a few of the dangling questions:
1) Stephane is correct that
http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/2003-09-20-dns-wildcards.html
is talking about wildcards ra
At Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:51:46 -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
> We have just submitted a new draft about a DNS server stats MIB.
> Any feedback would be appreciated!
If you haven't already read RFC 3197, please do so. It's short.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNS
19 matches
Mail list logo
