> Allow me to add one more to this thread... > it seems to me, being the author of the dnsii-trace draft that the proposed > NSI resolution schedule is very similar to that discussed in my draft with > david. Which means that the discussion about the approach is not really out > of the scope of this wg. Actually they are different. I second Marc's suggestion so lets keep VRGS stuff to VRGS's mailing list. For those who interested, the list is hosted by VRSG is [EMAIL PROTECTED] served by [EMAIL PROTECTED] -James Seng
- [idn] NSI whitepaper on ML Resolution Rick H Wesson
- Re: [idn] NSI whitepaper on ML Resolution Hideyo Imazu
- Re: [idn] NSI whitepaper on ML Resolution Rick H Wesson
- Re: [idn] NSI whitepaper on ML Resolution Patrik F�ltstr�m
- Re: [idn] NSI whitepaper on ML Resolution Hongbo Shi
- Re: [idn] NSI whitepaper on ML Resolution Hideyo Imazu
- RE: [idn] NSI whitepaper on ML Resolution Hollenbeck, Scott
- RE: [idn] NSI whitepaper on ML Resolution Rick H Wesson
- RE: [idn] NSI whitepaper on ML Resolution Marc Blanchet
- Re: [idn] NSI whitepaper on ML Resolution Edmon
- [idn] TRACE-CNAME mechanism James Seng/Personal
