At Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:42:49 +0100,
Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr wrote:
Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote
a message of 92 lines which said:
Are you interested on working on CGA-TSIGe and would you like to
devote some (10 minutes) of the meeting time in Dallas to a
I'm not. Currently, it's really too confused for me, and backed by
dubious claims.
Is it the same as new version? my explanation wasn't clear? What did you find
confusing?
___
dns-privacy mailing list
dns-privacy@ietf.org
Hi Bob,
Here is the list of changes
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Overview of CGA-TSIG/e Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
- Introduction section: added explanation to DNS privacy problem and
reference to DNS privacy problem
On 2/27/15 10:46 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:38:53AM -0500,
Phillip Hallam-Baker i...@hallambaker.com wrote
a message of 78 lines which said:
BTW are we planning to IETF last call this doc and publish as an RFC
or is this internal only?
The charter is
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/27/15 10:46 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:38:53AM -0500,
Phillip Hallam-Baker i...@hallambaker.com wrote
a message of 78 lines which said:
BTW are we planning to IETF last call
On 27/02/15 15:50, Tim Wicinski wrote:
Warren and I have discussed this, though not recently. The consensus
(from the group and from ADs) is published as an RFC. I know a few have
felt the IETF are awash in problem statements.
Yeah, but this discusses a real problem and not a problem :-)
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
i...@hallambaker.com wrote:
Seconded, just go ahead.
BTW are we planning to IETF last call this doc and publish as an RFC or is
this internal only? Yes we probably said but I can't keep which docs are
what in where straight.
The plan
On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Hosnieh Rafiee i...@rozanak.com wrote:
I agree that the first versions might be confusing.
I have looked at the current draft and it is still just as confusing to me. I
do not feel that it is a good use of our time to cycle on this draft just to
get it to be
Are you interested on working on CGA-TSIGe and would you like to
devote some (10 minutes) of the meeting time in Dallas to a
presentation / discussion on CGA-TSIGe?
I'm not. Currently, it's really too confused for me, and backed by
dubious claims.
Same here, at least that was
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Hosnieh Rafiee i...@rozanak.com wrote:
I agree that the first versions might be confusing.
I have looked at the current draft and it is still just as confusing to
me. I do not feel that
10 matches
Mail list logo
