Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

2017-03-30 Thread tjw ietf
Hi The Call for Adoption has ended and there was support to adopt this document and work out the handful of issues brought up. Thanks everyone for comments, etc. If the authors can upload a new version we;ll get that one squared away. thanks tim/suzanne On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 2:16 AM, tjw

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

2017-03-27 Thread Ondřej Surý
jw ietf" <tjw.i...@gmail.com> > To: "dnsop" <dnsop@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, 16 March, 2017 08:16:50 > Subject: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: > draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations > All > > We've had a lot of WG discussion on this, and it seems

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

2017-03-20 Thread Michael StJohns
On 3/16/2017 3:16 AM, tjw ietf wrote: All We've had a lot of WG discussion on this, and it seems relevant to do a formal call for adoption. If there are outstanding issues raised during the CfA, time in Chicago will be set aside to have those discussions. This starts a Call for Adoption

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

2017-03-20 Thread Michael StJohns
On 3/16/2017 10:24 AM, william manning wrote: this is a useful and needed document. I support its adoption by the WG. As a note to the authors, there was a proposed alternate to what became RFC 5011 which addressed some of the same issues as the current draft. It might be useful to review

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

2017-03-17 Thread Wes Hardaker
william manning writes: > this is a useful and needed document.  I support its adoption by the WG.  As a > note to the authors, there was a proposed alternate to what became RFC 5011 > which addressed some of the same issues as the current draft. It might be > useful

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

2017-03-16 Thread Bob Harold
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 3:16 AM, tjw ietf wrote: > All > > We've had a lot of WG discussion on this, and it seems relevant to do a > formal call for adoption. If there are outstanding issues raised during > the CfA, time in Chicago will be set aside to have those

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

2017-03-16 Thread william manning
this is a useful and needed document. I support its adoption by the WG. As a note to the authors, there was a proposed alternate to what became RFC 5011 which addressed some of the same issues as the current draft. It might be useful to review

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

2017-03-16 Thread Shane Kerr
Tim, At 2017-03-16 03:16:50 -0400 tjw ietf wrote: > We've had a lot of WG discussion on this, and it seems relevant to do a > formal call for adoption. If there are outstanding issues raised during > the CfA, time in Chicago will be set aside to have those discussions. >

Re: [DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

2017-03-16 Thread Petr Špaček
On 16.3.2017 08:16, tjw ietf wrote: > All > > We've had a lot of WG discussion on this, and it seems relevant to do a > formal call for adoption. If there are outstanding issues raised > during the CfA, time in Chicago will be set aside to have those > discussions. > > > This starts a Call

[DNSOP] DNSOP Call for Adoption: draft-hardaker-rfc5011-security-considerations

2017-03-16 Thread tjw ietf
All We've had a lot of WG discussion on this, and it seems relevant to do a formal call for adoption. If there are outstanding issues raised during the CfA, time in Chicago will be set aside to have those discussions. This starts a Call for Adoption for: