Following Suzanne's request to send text, I've put together a first draft
of what I think the Remediating (renamed to Remediation) section should
look like. In addition to this rewrite, I'd recommend moving it to be
directly after the Testing section.
# Remediation
Name server operators are
Hi,
Adding a few comments on this discussion, just one chair’s opinion:
The underlying question in this exchange seems to be what advice should this
document offer, and to whom?
This is a Working Group document, which means the decision about what’s in and
what’s out doesn’t rest with any
On 16 October 2016 at 21:15, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message
In message
On 9 October 2016 at 21:32, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message mail.gmail.com>, Matthew Pounsett writes:
> >
> > My first impression of this document is that it is still in need of some
> > extreme editing – mostly for
On 10 October 2016 at 12:33, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:56:42AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > If the IETF was setting servers that went and checked DNS servers
> > and informed the operators then the IETF would be in the business
> > of
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 01:56:42AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> If the IETF was setting servers that went and checked DNS servers
> and informed the operators then the IETF would be in the business
> of enforcing protocols. At this stage I don't see the IETF doing
> that nor is this document
In message
, william manning writes:
>
> Unfortunately we are no longer in the early days of the Internet AND the
> IETF has no business in enforcing compliance with our protocol standards.
> That's for the zone operators to
Unfortunately we are no longer in the early days of the Internet AND the
IETF has no business in enforcing compliance with our protocol standards.
That's for the zone operators to do. We are not the dns police. Even Paul
mocapetris has called for more innovation in the dns space. We must not
In message
, Matthew
Pounsett writes:
>
> My first impression of this document is that it is still in need of some
> extreme editing â mostly for grammar and syntax, but also for clarity and
> readability. I've included many
My first impression of this document is that it is still in need of some
extreme editing – mostly for grammar and syntax, but also for clarity and
readability. I've included many of the early problems I found in a list of
nits at the end of this email, but at two and three errors per paragraph
Hi dnsop,
Tim has asked me for a review for TLD perspective, so here it is.
A. The text in the RFC is very dense and very hard to read for me. Sometimes
it feels like that the paragraphs are composed just of bullet points put
together. I feel it needs a serious rewrite to improve
12 matches
Mail list logo