Moin!
On 8 Apr 2020, at 18:55, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Apr 8, 2020, at 9:41 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic
The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic/
Please review this draft to
(Borrowing Jim Reid's statement)
I support adoption of this ID and am willing to review and maybe
contribute text.
Best regards,
Rafael
On 08/04/2020 13:41, Tim Wicinski wrote:
This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic
The draft is available here:
I am supporting the adoption and will review the document.
Yours,
Daniel
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 2:19 PM Ted Hardie wrote:
> I support adoption and I would be willing to review and contribute text.
>
> Ted
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:41 AM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>>
>> This starts a Call for
I support adoption and I would be willing to review and contribute text.
Ted
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:41 AM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic
>
> The draft is available here:
>
On Apr 8, 2020, at 10:33 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>
> On 4/8/20 9:23 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 2020, at 10:03 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
>>> I think those comparisons belong in a separate document. Which
>>> would leave this draft as just the spec for doing DNS over QUIC.
>>
>> Would the
On 4/8/20 9:23 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2020, at 10:03 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
>> I think those comparisons belong in a separate document. Which
>> would leave this draft as just the spec for doing DNS over QUIC.
>
> Would the WG still want to do the protocol work if the eventual
>
This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-ghedini-dprive-early-data
The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ghedini-dprive-early-data/
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
by DPRIVE, and comments to the list, clearly stating your
On Apr 8, 2020, at 10:03 AM, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 8 Apr 2020, at 17:55, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>
>> This draft is better than earlier versions, but still is missing something
>> that seems crucial: detailed comparison between the protocol described here,
>> DoT, and DoH. The
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 10:04 AM Jim Reid wrote:
>
>
> > On 8 Apr 2020, at 17:55, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > This draft is better than earlier versions, but still is missing
> something that seems crucial: detailed comparison between the protocol
> described here, DoT, and DoH. The suggestion
> On 8 Apr 2020, at 17:55, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> This draft is better than earlier versions, but still is missing something
> that seems crucial: detailed comparison between the protocol described here,
> DoT, and DoH. The suggestion in the text that the comparison would be added
> after
On Apr 8, 2020, at 9:41 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic
>
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic/
>
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for
> On 8 Apr 2020, at 17:41, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic
I support adoption of this ID and am willing to review and maybe contribute
text.
___
dns-privacy mailing list
This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic
The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-huitema-dprive-dnsoquic/
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
by DPRIVE, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m88e3d0d091544ea59c79eb5e610a115a
appears to be the correct Webex link for today's session.
On 4/7/20 10:07 AM, IESG Secretary wrote:
> MEETING DETAILS HAVE CHANGED. SEE LATEST DETAILS BELOW.
>
> The DNS PRIVate Exchange (dprive) Working Group will hold
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
