The Call for Adoption period has ended and DNSOP has adopted the document.
Thanks for all the comments
(and calling me out on failing to read the current version. I am
chastised). The Working Group will get to
work through the terms in this draft as we move it forward.
thanks
Tim
On Fri, Aug
On Aug 2, 2019, at 10:59, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> And while we're at it, doesn't it make sense to (kinda proactively)
> include some potential transports in the draft (like DoQ) to avoid RFC
> one-liners in future? Even only to note later that those didn't see
> widespread adoption
Errata:
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019, 5:59 PM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> Even only to note later that those didn't see
> widespread adoption afterwards.
>
* "Even _if_ only ...", I'm not really that pessimistic.
--
Töma
>
___
DNSOP mailing list
In favor of adoption.
And while we're at it, doesn't it make sense to (kinda proactively)
include some potential transports in the draft (like DoQ) to avoid RFC
one-liners in future? Even only to note later that those didn't see
widespread adoption afterwards.
--
Töma
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at
On 8/1/19 6:08 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
I'm in favor of adoption.
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to suggest content changes in this same
thread already,
Yes, MR Hoffmann has been faster than me. again.
Tim
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 9:08 AM Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> > With no hats, I agree with George that I still don't like Do53.
>
> The d053 term has already been removed after initial feedback during
>
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Tim Wicinski wrote:
With no hats, I agree with George that I still don't like Do53.
The d053 term has already been removed after initial feedback during
the dnsop meeting :)
Paul
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
With no hats, I agree with George that I still don't like Do53.
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 6:30 PM Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> I believe that this should be adopted - having consistent and well
> agreed to terminology is important and helpful. I'm also glad that
> there are people willing to do
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:09 AM Tim Wicinski wrote:
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter
>
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter/
>
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for
I believe that this should be adopted - having consistent and well
agreed to terminology is important and helpful. I'm also glad that
there are people willing to do this - I can think of few things more
annoying to write than a terminology document...
W
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 6:27 PM George
> > In favour of adoption. Simple, short and clear document.
> +1
+1
From: DNSOP on behalf of Jim Reid
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 10:08 AM
To: Paul Wouters
Cc: Tim Wicinski ; dnsop
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-hoffman-dns-termin
> On 1 Aug 2019, at 18:04, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> In favour of adoption. Simple, short and clear document.
+1
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
In favour of adoption. Simple, short and clear document.
Paul
Sent from mobile device
> On Aug 1, 2019, at 12:08, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
> Back in 2014, we started with "DNS Terminology" which became RFC7719
> Then In 2016, this became a BCP version of "DNS Terminology" which is now
>
Back in 2014, we started with "DNS Terminology" which became RFC7719
Then In 2016, this became a BCP version of "DNS Terminology" which is now
RFC8499
Now, in 2109, there is a request to include additional terms to reflect
the new transports DNS is being used over.There is still discussion
14 matches
Mail list logo
