I support this plan, and am eager to see the logjam unblocked!
The mechanism for how we reintroduce the ECH option for SVCB can be debated
separately. I like the idea of a separate small document, but can also see it
being in the TLS draft or a bis of the SVCB document. Mainly that’s a question
On Feb 24, 2023, at 2:41 PM, Wessels, Duane
wrote:
>
> Thank you authors for the update which addressed my concern about formatting
> of the special use considerations as an enumerated list.
You weren't the only one who brow-beat us about that...
> Forgive me if I am being difficult, but I fe
Thank you authors for the update which addressed my concern about formatting of
the special use considerations as an enumerated list.
Forgive me if I am being difficult, but I feel that the first sentence of the
privacy section, which says “... so should not attempt to be resolved using the
glo
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Domain Name System Operations WG of
the IETF.
Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain
Authors : Warren Kumari
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'DNS Catalog Zones'
(draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-09.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Domain Name System Operations Working
Group.
The IESG contact persons are Warren Kumari and Robert Wilton.
A URL of this Inte
Moin!
On 23 Feb 2023, at 18:39, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Instead of just having all of these document stuck indefinitely, I'm
> proposing that we:
> 1: Ask the RFC Editor to return the document to the IESG & IETF[1].
> 2: I return it to the WG.
> 3: The authors remove the bits that rely on ESNI
> 4:
Moin!
On 23 Feb 2023, at 23:53, Jim Reid wrote:
>> On 23 Feb 2023, at 22:36, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> How much DNS traffic is even still inspectable these days?
>
> Depends on the definition of DNS traffic Ted. DNS-OARC has many TB of pcaps
> and query logs from the DITL project. Whether that data co
I think Paul conveyed the authors' opinions here pretty well. Just wanted
to respond to the token generation bit:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 at 08:22, Paul Wouters wrote:
> John Levine wrote:
>
> > While I think it would be good to publish some best practices in this
> area,
> > this draft still seems
