All
I ended up taking a few days off last week than expected, but I wanted to
send out the minutes, as well as the list of chairs' actions we recorded.
The minutes are attached here but are also in their usual locations:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-116-dnsop/
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 6:57 PM, Paul Hoffman
wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> No one proposed to retire the term?
>
> Not yet, I believe.
>
> If unclear and additionally inappropriate from an inclusive language point
> of view, why not document the term as is, with
On Apr 11, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> No one proposed to retire the term?
Not yet, I believe.
> If unclear and additionally inappropriate from an inclusive language point of
> view, why not document the term as is, with a note explaining it is
> incomplete (without trying to
> On 11 Apr 2023, at 9:57 am, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> Sure, the cost of replacing NSEC and NSEC3 would be another resource record
> type code roll
> (such as 5->8, RSA-SHA1 vs RSA-SHA1-NSEC3). But a new on-the-fly denial of
> existence might
> prove to be worth it in operations.
No such
No one proposed to retire the term? If unclear and additionally inappropriate
from an inclusive language point of view, why not document the term as is, with
a note explaining it is incomplete (without trying to fix it) and calling the
term historic?
Paul
Sent using a virtual keyboard on a
On Apr 8, 2023, at 7:12 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> I have been on vacation this week and am just seeing this thread now. Now
> that a bunch of people have spoken up on the topic, if someone wants to
> propose a *specific* change to the definition in draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis,
> this would
On 11Apr23, Warren Kumari apparently wrote:
> lame delegation
> lame server
Notwithstanding an unresponsive/unreachable server, perhaps due to an ephemeral
network
error, is there any scenario where a misconfigured server is not described as
lame in some
way?
Put another way, fixing a lame
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 5:13 PM, Mats Dufberg <
mats.dufberg=40internetstiftelsen...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> mats> For the *delegation* to be lame it is not enough for one name
> mats> server to be ``broken''. The entire set must be such that the path
> mats> to the child zone content is
Hi Paul,
I just checked Rev. -23, it is good to go.
Behcet
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:04 AM Paul Hoffman
wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2023, at 9:27 AM, Behcet Sarikaya via Datatracker <
> nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> > a) I managed to find in this well written document one
Mr Hunt!
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 21:09, Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 02:35:36PM +, Joe Abley wrote:
>> I continue to think that if you don't get a response, you can't tell
>> whether the delegation is lame. Lameness (as I use the term) relates the
>> configuration of the
10 matches
Mail list logo
