I include my responses embedded
> below and prefixed with “JG-“.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> JG
>
>
> [image: cid87442*image001.png@01D960C5.C631DA40]
>
>
> *James Gould *Fellow Engineer
> jgo...@verisign.com
>
> 703-948-3271
> 12061 Bluemont Way
>
Hi all,
I had look over the EoQ draft during the WG at this IETF, and I have some
issues about how the QUIC primitives are used. I can't see any previous
discussion of this on the ML either.
My big issue with this draft, is the use of QUIC streams. That is, the
draft uses one QUIC stream, for the
and the Glauca logo are registered
trademarks in the UK, under № UK3718474 and № UK3718468,
respectively.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 18:36, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Q Misell said:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >> You would only need an EPP extension in the scenario wher
Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are registered
trademarks in the UK, under № UK3718474 and № UK3718468,
respectively.
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 10:00, Gavin Brown wrote:
>
>
> > On 30 Jul 2024, at 08:13, Q Misell
> wrote:
> >
> > Moin,
> >
> > Th
Moin,
There has been work recently in DNSOP on Generalised DNS Notifications (
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-generalized-notify-02.html
).
This draft is mostly targeted at CDS/CDNSKEY, but is general to
other notifications.
As the draft currently stands this requires a record a
> Host rename always seemed a dangerous operation
Why so?
--
Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are
not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated.
AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-
