Tim Wicinski has requested publication of
draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format-08 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the
DNSOP working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format/
The following errata report has been held for document update
for RFC6781, "DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2".
--
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5276
--
Status: Held for
Hi all,
We have requested one DNSOP session of 2 hours for the IETF 103. The
preliminary IETF agenda will be published on October 5th.
Please submit a request for agenda time if you want to present a draft.
We will be following up on several items, but there is also room for new
work.
Thanks,
As to whether it's best or worst practice, I'd stay away from that and
just clarify that the bar for adding new entries is high because of
the risk that they will collide with existing non-special use.
Note also that if the document intends to create a registry, it will need to
specify the
On 2 Oct 2018, at 14:56, John Levine wrote:
> As to whether it's best or worst practice, I'd stay away from that and
> just clarify that the bar for adding new entries is high because of
> the risk that they will collide with existing non-special use.
Note also that if the document intends to
In article <9bdde6a6-7ee8-43a7-ab97-84286e82f...@icann.org>,
Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> My only concern is that I hope kskrol-sentinel and mta-sts are not held up
>> while we quickly hammer out this labels registry.
>
>MTA-STS is already an RFC, so there is nothing to hold up. I don't think that
Mirja, just checking in.
The most recent version satisfied Benjamin, and I *think* it satisfies your
comment too.
W
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 12:57 AM Ted Lemon wrote:
> Mirja, I notice that you are still holding a discuss on this document. I
> believe that we addressed the concerns you
On Oct 2, 2018, at 4:56 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
>
> My only concern is that I hope kskrol-sentinel and mta-sts are not held up
> while we quickly hammer out this labels registry.
MTA-STS is already an RFC, so there is nothing to hold up. I don't think that
the IESG would hold up
Tim,
It feels to me like “this bucket” is not well defined enough at this point to
say whether 8145 falls in it, or not. Shouldn’t the dns-special-labels draft
lay out some guidelines for what goes in the registry and what doesn’t? And
maybe even explain in what ways the registry entries
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:51 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
> The chairs and the authors of this document feel that the
> document is in solid shape to proceed to WGLC.
>
>
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update
>
> Current versions of the draft is available
The chairs and the authors of this document feel that the
document is in solid shape to proceed to WGLC.
This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-algorithm-update
Current versions of the draft is available here:
My only concern is that I hope kskrol-sentinel and mta-sts are not held up
while we quickly hammer out this labels registry.
Question: does 8145 (key tag) fall into this bucket?
I think Terry's comment should be in any document describing this registry:
Therefore, it is important to note that
12 matches
Mail list logo
