ways
does. The schedule is extremely difficult this time, and requests to
move off Friday because people want to go home early will almost
certainly be rejected.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https
le doing compliance checks, who maybe
shouldn't have access to the SRS directly and who should only have
access to the RDDS. They still need to be able to see these
distinctions.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
at know how to look things up in an
IANA protocol parameters registry, so I never understood how this was
an objection. But anyway, that ship has closed the barn door.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.
pository policies are a secret from the RDDS strikes me as at least
unintuitive. Moreover, since one RDDS service (whois) already
actually has mechanisms for communicating such information today at
least in some implementations, we have running code that we need to
conform to.
Best regards,
O, very close to the worst scaling plan I've heard on the Internet
in a very long time.
> We can do that using a local WHOIS port-43 attender
Really? Are we still talking about keeping that miserable obsolete
nightmare around even longer?
Port 43 must die.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
90 minutes. Even the IAB and IESG have figured out that
most of what passes for status should not show up in presentations,
but should be in emails distributed in advance so that people can
discuss topics that arise as a result. Couldn't that be cut down?
A
--
Ah. That doesn't sound like "status" at all. More like "problem solving".
Sounds fabulous. Probably wise to present it to the IESG that way :-)
--
Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
> On Sep 1, 2017, at 12:25, Andrew Newton wrote:
>
>> On
re are reasons to put ANAME
or DNAME, if you believe those things will work, that have to do with
parent-side policy. That can't be done on the child side because then
the parent has to monitor all its children, which sucks.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew
create their own extensions to do those things anyway
(since EPP is designed precisely to allow such extensions), and we'll
be back to the same problem that brought EPP work back to the IETF:
everyone conforms to the standard, and yet there are as many ways to
do a thing in EPP as there are reg
that is generally bad for interoperability.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
oprietary ways", I'm going to pick the former every
time.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
lished practices, that _too_ is an outcome -- one I
think is less desirable for the interoperation of the global Internet.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
___
regext mailing list
regext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
12 matches
Mail list logo
