All
Daniel and I noticed some weird formatting issues with his -02 draft, so
he's pushed out -03 which is just fixing some broken formatting.
Tim
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:28 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Thanks Daniel. We've been waiting for your updated draft.
>
> tim
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24,
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
Title : Recommendations for DNSSEC Resolvers Operators
Authors : Daniel Migault
ok, I just posted the 02 version.
Yours,
Daniel
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 2:28 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Thanks Daniel. We've been waiting for your updated draft.
>
> tim
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:14 AM Daniel Migault
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> If you think I have addressed all comments I
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of the IETF.
Title : Recommendations for DNSSEC Resolvers Operators
Authors : Daniel Migault
Thanks Daniel. We've been waiting for your updated draft.
tim
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 10:14 AM Daniel Migault wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If you think I have addressed all comments I received, if you believe that
> is not the case or if there are other comments, please let me know.
> Otherwise I
(Speaking only for myself)
One thing which concerns me is the updating of RFC8914. RFC8914 has only
been out a short while, and we're just starting to see deployment out in
the world.
If adopted, I hope that Much Smarter DNS People(tm) will evaluate these
changes.
tim
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at
It appears that Tim Wicinski said:
>Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
I think it's worth adopting.
My main concern is that it appears to assume that everyone in the
world can read English error messages, a problem it shares with RFC
8914. I can think of
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:07 PM Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Tim,
>
> I think I’ve just did that in the previous email. I feel that gathering
> information about more implementations first would be better, so the
> section on Implementation could be uniform for all gathered input.
>
> Ondrej
>
I
Tim,I think I’ve just did that in the previous email. I feel that gathering information about more implementations first would be better, so the section on Implementation could be uniform for all gathered input.Ondrej--Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)My working hours and your working hours may be
Thanks Warren!
As we discussed, it appears I felt all comments had been addressed, but
missed some nuances.
In the next few days I'll reach out to these folks to help me suggest some
text on
adding an Implementations Section, but also making sure we've addressed all
comments.
My guess is we'll do
Hi all,
Thank you to the authors, chairs and WG for wanting to make the document as
good as it can be, even if that does require some more work.
The chairs have requested that I return it to the WG to get an
implementation section added, and so I'll do so[0].
Thanks again,
W
[0]: I'll keep the
Hi,
If you think I have addressed all comments I received, if you believe that
is not the case or if there are other comments, please let me know.
Otherwise I expect to publish a new version by the end of the week.
Yours,
Daniel
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 5:21 PM Daniel Migault wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
The chairs thank all for this feedback, even at this stage. But it's
better to catch these issues now, than
later on in the process.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 3:52 PM Ondřej Surý wrote:
> I am indifferent about what label we stick on this, but perhaps the
> document should have a section on
I support adoption.
I also suggest the authors take a look at two long-ago-expired I-Ds that are
related to this subject:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-livingood-dns-malwareprotect-02.html
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-livingood-dns-redirect-03.html
Lastly, to the contents of
14 matches
Mail list logo
