Hi Peter,
On 06/03/2023 23:31, Peter Thomassen wrote:
I just went over the updated wording in draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-05,
and the paragraph
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-05.html#section-7-2.36 caught my attention.
It uses the term "zone origin", but doesn't
Hi Benno, all,
I just went over the updated wording in draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-05, and the
paragraph
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc8499bis-05.html#section-7-2.36
caught my attention.
It uses the term "zone origin", but doesn't say whether it relates to the
parent
Hi Peter,
On 04/11/2022 00:52, Peter Thomassen wrote:
On 11/3/22 17:44, Benno Overeinder wrote:
Questions:
1b. Does this also mean changing the definition of "out-of-bailiwick"
to a more historical definition as well? Or do we still need a
term for in-domain name server,
Hi Libor,
On 04/11/2022 12:15, libor.peltan wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to understand this, but not sure if I do. What I see is:
"The definition of bailiwick (in-b, out-of-b) is messed up and any
further use of it in normative documents will probably lead to
ambiguities. The proposed tactic is to
Hi,
I'm trying to understand this, but not sure if I do. What I see is:
"The definition of bailiwick (in-b, out-of-b) is messed up and any
further use of it in normative documents will probably lead to
ambiguities. The proposed tactic is to stop using it and define a new
term (in-domain)
On 11/3/22 17:44, Benno Overeinder wrote:
Questions:
1. Move Bailiwick to historical.
1a. During the interim, there was a (feeling of) consensus to drop a
formal definition of "bailiwick", but keep a historical definition
(how it was interpreted by) of "bailiwick". Also do not
Dear WG,
With the DNSOP rfc8499bis interim in September, we had the action point
to send two questions to the DNSOP WG to find consensus on the bailiwick
and glue discussion.
You can find the interim meeting material here
