> On 25 Jul 2019, at 9:10 pm, Tony Finch wrote:
>
> Samuel Weiler wrote:
>>
>> That does not include the argument in the below bullet, which I find unclear.
>> What does "name redirection" mean in this context?
>>
>> o Since the zones are related to private networks, it would make
>>
Sam,
On 7/25/19 1:22 AM, Samuel Weiler wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>
>> Here's a draft with discussion why also the protocol should go
>> away. We would like to hear what you think about it.
>
> The discussion of the private network use case in section 2 has two
>
Samuel Weiler wrote:
>
> That does not include the argument in the below bullet, which I find unclear.
> What does "name redirection" mean in this context?
>
>o Since the zones are related to private networks, it would make
> more sense to make the internal network more secure to avoid
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
Here's a draft with discussion why also the protocol should go
away. We would like to hear what you think about it.
The discussion of the private network use case in section 2 has two
minor errors plus one bit that is unclear.
When we designed
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
Here's a draft with discussion why also the protocol should go
away. We would like to hear what you think about it.
No objection. I'm not aware of any active private use of DLV.
Thank you for doing the detailed work of looking up the citations and
The chairs discussed this and the "process" moving documents to Historic is
varied based on the documentation.
(https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-designating-rfcs-historic/).
We've assigned our IESG Overlord to do what
IESG Overlords do in these situations. From reading the available
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:13 PM Matthijs Mekking
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> A while back I was asked why BIND 9 still had code to do DLV. Good
> question, and we asked our users if they would mind if we remove the
> code. Almost everyone was okay with that.
>
> So ISC plans to deprecate the feature in
fine by me.
Get BlueMail for Android
On 2 Jul 2019, 13:11, at 13:11, Dan York wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 2, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2 Jul 2019, at 19:12, Matthijs Mekking
>wrote:
>>>
>>> I think it is time to move the protocol to Historic status as a
>clear signal to
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 2 Jul 2019, at 19:12, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>>
>> I think it is time to move the protocol to Historic status as a clear signal
>> to
>> everyone that it should no longer be implemented or deployed.
>
> Agreed. Kill it with
> On 2 Jul 2019, at 21.31, Jim Reid wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 2 Jul 2019, at 19:12, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>>
>> I think it is time to move the protocol to Historic status as a clear signal
>> to
>> everyone that it should no longer be implemented or deployed.
>
> Agreed. Kill it with fire!
>
> On 2 Jul 2019, at 19:12, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>
> I think it is time to move the protocol to Historic status as a clear signal
> to
> everyone that it should no longer be implemented or deployed.
Agreed. Kill it with fire!
___
DNSOP mailing
+1 to all of that which follows!
> On 2 Jul 2019, at 14:41, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>
>> So ISC plans to deprecate the feature in BIND 9. But also I think it is
>> time to move the protocol to Historic status as a clear signal to
>> everyone that it
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:13 AM Matthijs Mekking
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> A while back I was asked why BIND 9 still had code to do DLV. Good
> question, and we asked our users if they would mind if we remove the
> code. Almost everyone was okay with that.
>
> So ISC plans to deprecate the feature in
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
So ISC plans to deprecate the feature in BIND 9. But also I think it is
time to move the protocol to Historic status as a clear signal to
everyone that it should no longer be implemented or deployed.
I agree with moving DLV to historic. It is no
I strongly support moving it to Historic.
Regards,
-drc
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 11:12 AM, Matthijs Mekking wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> A while back I was asked why BIND 9 still had code to do DLV. Good
> question, and we asked our users if they would mind if we remove the
> code. Almost everyone was
15 matches
Mail list logo
