Hi Benno,
On Thu, 2021-07-29 at 23:48 +0200, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> As a follow up to Shumon's email, the order is indeed different than
> usual. Normally we schedule current business first, but for
> agenda-technical reasons (allowing discussion) we have changed the order.
>
> Hope you
Hello Shumon,
On Thu, 2021-07-29 at 14:49 -0400, Shumon Huque wrote:
>
> I'm sure the chairs will answer you on process, but I wanted to state that I
> had actually posted -00 before the draft cutoff (-01 posted later was a minor
> tweak) and asked for agenda time then. The chairs apologized to
As a follow up to Shumon's email, the order is indeed different than
usual. Normally we schedule current business first, but for
agenda-technical reasons (allowing discussion) we have changed the order.
Hope you understand the exception to the rule.
Best,
-- Benno
On 29/07/2021 21:04,
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:29 PM Peter van Dijk
wrote:
> >
> >Empty Non-Terminal Sentinel for Black Lies
> >
> > Abstract
> >
> >The Black Lies method of providing compact DNSSEC denial of existence
> >proofs has some operational implications. Depending on the specific
>
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:49 PM Shumon Huque wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:41 PM Peter van Dijk <
> peter.van.d...@powerdns.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> This is not a comment on the specific draft at all. This is a comment
>> on WG process. It seems weird to me to discuss prioritisation -after-
>>
Hi Peter,
On 29 Jul 2021, at 14:39, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On this version, I see under New Working Group Business a draft (the
> black lies sentinel) that was posted two days ago. Can somebody please
> explain to me what the purpose of the draft cutoff is, if drafts can
> appear in the
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 2:41 PM Peter van Dijk
wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-07-28 at 17:04 +0200, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> > Dear WG,
> >
> > We have updated the agenda for DNSOP WG session II on Thursday 29 July.
> > The updated agenda is uploaded to datatracker:
> >
On Wed, 2021-07-28 at 17:04 +0200, Benno Overeinder wrote:
> Dear WG,
>
> We have updated the agenda for DNSOP WG session II on Thursday 29 July.
> The updated agenda is uploaded to datatracker:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/agenda-111-dnsop-06
On this version, I see
Hi Shumon,
On Tue, 2021-07-27 at 19:34 -0400, Shumon Huque wrote:
> Folks,
>
> While we have the attention of DNSOP folks this week, I'd like to ask for
> review of this draft (I meant to send it earlier in time for f2f discussion
> on Tuesday, but better late than never).
>
>
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021, Jared Mauch wrote:
I think calling out that it’s possible people will create situations where a
name won’t resolve, is similar to what happens with routing that isn’t
deterministic as well. We should be defining how to determinsticly resolve a
name and highlight that
On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 11:45:28AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
>
> > On 29 Jul 2021, at 10:33 am, Mark Delany wrote:
> >
> > On 29Jul21, Geoff Huston allegedly wrote:
> >
> >> For me it appears to depend on the actions of the resolver as to whether
> >> this would be faster
> >> or not. If
> On Jul 28, 2021, at 12:16 AM, John Levine wrote:
>
> OK, so I ask for foo.example and I get
>
> ; answer
> foo.example NS ns.bar.example
> ; additional
> ns.bar.example 2001:0DB8::000b::2
>
> Does it check that's the right value for ns.bar.example? How about with
> DNSSEC? I
12 matches
Mail list logo
