Andrew,
On Mar 25, 2016, at 7:16 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I think it is plain that a name that is actually somehow implicated in
> the existing root policies (in which I would include names that are
> excluded under some ICANN policy) are just not candidates for 6761
> reservation, and I woul
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 7:51 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >As I think many here know, I am not of the get-off-my-lawn persuasion
> >for DNS innovations. I don't think it's a bad idea in principle. I'm
> >just aware that we have this long history, and that history was based
> >on a certain kind of c
> On Mar 25, 2016, at 9:37 PM 3/25/16, Paul Hoffman
> wrote:
>
> On 25 Mar 2016, at 8:33, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
>> I'm responding here with none of my various hats on...
>
> As are we all. (Or, in some of our cases, wearing none of our organization's
> jaunty logos...)
>
>> Here's the tl;dr
>As I think many here know, I am not of the get-off-my-lawn persuasion
>for DNS innovations. I don't think it's a bad idea in principle. I'm
>just aware that we have this long history, and that history was based
>on a certain kind of conservatism that is arguably appropriate to a
>technology quit
Hi,
Since we're making disclaimers, ObDisclaimerPersonalViews.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 08:32:02PM +, Alain Durand wrote:
> IMHO, a "more well-defined decision process" would not help, as I would argue
> that the IETF (and the IESG as well) is ill-equipped
> to wade in the political/economic/
On 25 Mar 2016, at 8:33, Ralph Droms wrote:
I'm responding here with none of my various hats on...
As are we all. (Or, in some of our cases, wearing none of our
organization's jaunty logos...)
Here's the tl;dr version. This document has some useful information
and raises, directly and ind
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 08:33:28AM +1000, George Michaelson wrote:
> Very strong +1. The % of incoming query with DO set is far, far higher
> than the % of incoming query seen at authority who subsequently ask
> for DS/DNSKEY at zone and parent. There is a good, strong indication
> that resolvers p
In message <20160325142954.ga18...@nic.fr>, Stephane Bortzmeyer writes:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:05:19PM -0800,
> "IETF Secretariat" wrote
> a message of 42 lines which said:
>
> > dnsop Session 1 (2:00:00)
> > Friday, Morning Session I 1000-1200
> > Room Name: Buen Ayre C size: 2
> On Mar 25, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
>>>
>>> By design, RFC 6761 makes no
>>> statement about a specific WG or evaluation body or process.
>>
>> Which is, of course, one of the key problems. It results in an undefined
>> decision process dependent on the individual subjective e
Thanks for the quick followup, David...
> On Mar 25, 2016, at 1:04 PM 3/25/16, David Conrad
> wrote:
>
> Ralph,
>
> On Mar 25, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>> I'm responding here with none of my various hats on...
>
> Me too.
>
>> RD>> I think it's more correct to write that RFC 768
Ralph,
On Mar 25, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> I'm responding here with none of my various hats on...
Me too.
> RD>> I think it's more correct to write that RFC 7686 defines ".onion"
> as a Special-Use Domain Name, which takes it out of the Domain Name
> space.
No. It is still a dom
I'm responding here with none of my various hats on...
Here's the tl;dr version. This document has some useful information and
raises, directly and indirectly, some important questions that the IETF should
consider. Unfortunately, those useful bits are buried in a polemic that is
directed tow
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 02:41:02PM +0800,
Z.W. Yan wrote
a message of 80 lines which said:
> A new draft about the operation of DNS cache service was just posted.
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-dnsop-dns-cache-00.txt
> This is an initial version and needs more details, so we
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:05:19PM -0800,
"IETF Secretariat" wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
> dnsop Session 2 (1:00:00)
> Friday, Afternoon Session I 1220-1320
> Room Name: Pacifico A size: 300
Wednesday, now.
___
DNSOP mailin
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:05:19PM -0800,
"IETF Secretariat" wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
> dnsop Session 1 (2:00:00)
> Friday, Morning Session I 1000-1200
> Room Name: Buen Ayre C size: 250
Nothing about draft-ietf-dnsop-no-response-issue,
draft-ietf-dnsop-refuse-any or dr
> From: Shane Kerr
>> Last week, Kato and I submitted -03 version of
>> draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse draft. It improved the
>> structure of the document for readability and made minor corrections
>> but essential idea has not been changed.
>
> Thank you for this work. I hope that it go
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 06:09:56PM -0700,
Paul Hoffman wrote
a message of 83 lines which said:
> The authors have done a great job of cleaning up the document since
> the -01, but there are still many open issues.
In my opinion, there are no substantial differences between -01 and
-02. So, al
17 matches
Mail list logo
