Hello; I do support adoption.
On 10/7/19 4:52 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
The main caveat for me is I don't know if it'd be worth
publishing an RFC if this doesn't end up getting deployed
in browsers. So getting clarity there as early as poss
would be good if we can.
I agree, but I wouldn't
On Oct 7, 2019, at 9:37 AM, 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 think this is important work, and support adoption.
___
DNSOP
Hi Normen and DNSOP working group,
On 02/10/2019 22:10, Normen B. Kowalewski wrote:
> Is there is still any open issue that keeps people from seeing the reuse of
> the general purpose DNS definitinons in the IANA registry in a formal model
> and by YANG as useful enough for supporting adotion?
All
We want to thank the authors for working on this. The chairs
feel that part of the discussion around this document would be to
resolve:
- ANAME/HTTPSSVC possible overlaps
- The RR Type Name (no one seems to be in love with current names)
This starts a Call for Adoption for
Hiya,
On 07/10/2019 15:37, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> All
>
> We want to thank the authors for working on this. The chairs
> feel that part of the discussion around this document would be to
> resolve:
> - ANAME/HTTPSSVC possible overlaps
> - The RR Type Name (no one seems to be in love with
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 6:37 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
>
> All
>
> We want to thank the authors for working on this. The chairs
> feel that part of the discussion around this document would be to
> resolve:
> - ANAME/HTTPSSVC possible overlaps
> - The RR Type Name (no one seems to be in love
I support adoption of this document—although I agree that the names do need
some bike shedding if/when it is adopted! This is a good mechanism to use for
ESNI keys and Alt-Svc. I also think that the extensibility it provides is
important property (for example, I am proposing to use it for
In article
you write:
>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.
>
>Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
I think we should adopt and will review, but I would also
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, at 7:37 AM, 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.
>
> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
I have reviewed the
On behalf of Chrome DNS, I support adoption and plan to stay engaged on
this. While I don't think the draft is perfect yet, we like the general
approach and are interested in exploring it further.
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Benno Overeinder wrote:
Questions to WG:
1) iana-class-type-yang document to OPSAWG?
I would assume most people here will the same about the document,
wherever it is discussed ? So this option seems odd.
2) follow-up work on YANG data models for DNS servers in DNSOP?
Also, for folks who supported adoption in the other thread, we're counting
them.
Tim
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 2:02 PM Tim Wicinski wrote:
> John
>
> I believe the browser vendors have made such an agreement. We should get
> confirmation.
>
> Stephen
>
> I agree with you on solving the larger
John
I believe the browser vendors have made such an agreement. We should get
confirmation.
Stephen
I agree with you on solving the larger ESNI problem. The chairs will put
that on our list for the authors.
Thanks
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 1:45 PM John Levine wrote:
> In article
On 7 Oct 2019, at 10:37, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc
>
> The draft is available here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc/
>
> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Tim Wicinski wrote:
I believe the browser vendors have made such an agreement. We should get
confirmation.
That's about 2/3 of it, but I hope they stay engaged to avoid an outcome
where we make changes that seem OK to us and they come back at the end and
say no, we're not
15 matches
Mail list logo
