On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I couldn't quite interpret the questions and hums in the room; was the
> consensus
>
> (a) this clarification is not needed; the existing spec is clear enough, or
>
> (b) a clarification might be useful, but the proposed clarification
Stuart,
by mistake, my incomplete email was sent.
Here is the complete email.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2015, at 01:51, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
> wrote:
>
> > Hi 6man, 6lo and dnsop folks,
> >
> > There will be a talk about IoT DNS Name Autoconfiguration
>
Dear Stuart,
Thanks for your constructive comments below.
I answer your comments in lines.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2015, at 01:51, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
> wrote:
>
> > Hi 6man, 6lo and dnsop folks,
> >
> > There will be a talk about IoT DNS Name Autoc
On 5 Nov 2015, at 13:47, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Is
there a document that says not to put such a record into the root,
however?
No, but there is an RFC from the IAB about what labels should not be
into the root without further consideration: RFC 4690. That has been
widely interpreted as "do n
On 3 Nov 2015, at 01:51, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote:
> Hi 6man, 6lo and dnsop folks,
>
> There will be a talk about IoT DNS Name Autoconfiguration
> in 6man WG's morning session tomorrow, 11/4/2015.
>
> Title: DNS Name Autoconfiguration for Internet of Things Devices
> https://tools.ietf.org
Hi,
Today I went to the mic in response to Stéphane's question about DNAME
in the root zone. I gather the point I was trying to make wasn't clear.
What I understood Stéphane to be saying was that the IETF ought to
take a position on whether it'd be a good idea to put a DNAME record
into the root
On 4.11.2015 22:53, Tony Finch wrote:
> Tim Wicinski wrote:
>>
>> draft-spacek-dnsop-update-clarif, Spacek
Grrr, dnsop session ended right on time and Paul Wouters did not get necessary
30 seconds to present this draft to the WG.
Anyway:
> Note that my 2317bis draft has a slightly different
Hi all,
I couldn't quite interpret the questions and hums in the room; was the
consensus
(a) this clarification is not needed; the existing spec is clear enough,
or
(b) a clarification might be useful, but the proposed clarification in
the document is wrong, or
(c) something else?
If it
The DNSOP WG has placed draft-wessels-edns-key-tag in state
Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Tim Wicinski)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wessels-edns-key-tag/
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www
On Thursday, November 05, 2015 10:16:19 AM Tim WIcinski wrote:
> I believe the IESG guidance given to us is that no Special Use Domain
> Names will be addressed until the 6761 "scaling issue" has a direction.
tellingly, the technologies that will surround "homenet" will also be relevant
to SOHO a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
paul,
I would like to apologize for asking you to sit down.
My interpretation of the statement was that:
We do not have scope to address a charter item because it belongs at
icann.
We need to either address it or inform the iesg that we are
The authors of this draft was alerted when -00 was initially submitted
that this approval needed to pass through DNSOP.
On 11/5/15 10:19 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
Which demands pretty direct pushback on the AD and WG chairs, because
otherwise, we're just building a huge queue of pent-up
Which demands pretty direct pushback on the AD and WG chairs, because
otherwise, we're just building a huge queue of pent-up demand for names.
Names we might decide we don't think should happen, or happen a different
way.
If we allow WG adoption in another WG of something which heads into an
activ
I believe the IESG guidance given to us is that no Special Use Domain
Names will be addressed until the 6761 "scaling issue" has a direction.
On 11/5/15 10:11 AM, George Michaelson wrote:
So can somebody explain to me what we are meant to do with a possible
emerging homenet desire for .home?
So can somebody explain to me what we are meant to do with a possible
emerging homenet desire for .home?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cheshire-homenet-dot-home/
because I believe this isn't just the tail of odd requests from the tor
people for various hash based names.. its another WG i
The DNSOP WG has placed draft-dnsop-refuse-any in state
Adopted by a WG (entered by Tim Wicinski)
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dnsop-refuse-any/
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/
Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> draft-spacek-dnsop-update-clarif, Spacek
Note that my 2317bis draft has a slightly different take on UPDATE vs
classless reverse DNS. The UPDATE section of my draft is entirely due to
Petr's draft, so I'm very grateful to him for pointing out the problem.
I'm intereste
I've uploaded a final final agenda and all the slides. We had to move
the 6761 Discussion earlier in the meeting to deal with a conflict Ralph
has. It's going to still have a 30 minute hard limit.
tim
-
WG: DNS Operations (dnsop)
Meeting:IETF 9
Stephane,
The following paragraph in section 2 was an attempt at capturing your point:
" Such usage, which a few commenters have referred to as "protocol
switching," is not limited to "protocol switch" in the strict sense
of indicating specific protocols on the wire. It could indicate to
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 12:20:27PM +0900,
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote
a message of 73 lines which said:
> draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem-00 raises several issues,
And I forgot one of the most important ones, but I remembered it
during a discussion over sashimi this evening (the sashim
20 matches
Mail list logo
