.
Well, maybe. The "Let's Encrypt" example is actually part of the
acme spec (RFC 8555) and is an IETF product.
Melinda
--
Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@nomountain.net
Software longa, hardware brevis
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf
. This is a tidy approach that provides a basis
for moving forward, and I'd be very happy indeed to see it adopted by
dnsop.
Melinda
--
Melinda Shore
melinda.sh...@gmail.com
Software longa, hardware brevis
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https
On 3/11/19 9:13 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> I admit I'm not sure that Secdispatch is so important here. The
> subject of the side meeting is not security-specific.
It also conflicts with irtfopen, which may impact the
availability of pearg people, hrpc folk, etc.
Melinda
--
Software
On 2/15/19 9:46 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> This technically also allows one to separate the two DNS zones more
> clearly (and could even be managed by a different group)
>
> I'm really on the fence for this document. On the one hand, it is good
> to have a memorable decentralized identifier, but
On 11/14/17 5:13 PM, Dave Lawrence wrote:
> Given that the Thursday dnsop slot from 15:50-17:50 has been
> cancelled, is there interest in having another get-together then?
That's still scheduled against both nwcrg and acme, so it's not a
great time. The core issue that led to us canceling the
On 11/13/17 8:17 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> This is showing up on the agenda as canceled.
Yes, this is an informal side meeting - the actual session is
canceled.
Melinda
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
DNSOP mailing list
With regrets to the fine folks of dnsop, we've scheduled the
dinrg side meeting from 9:30 - 12:00 this morning. We realize
that there are many people in the dns community who are
interested in decentralized approaches to naming but scheduling
during this meeting has been exceptionally difficult.
On 11/10/17 8:16 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Any news on that? The monday session collides with DIN which is really
> unfortunate for me because they talk a lot about name resolution
> (Namecoin, Ethereum Name Service). I may face a hard choice.
We've had to cancel the dinrg session on
On 3/20/17 7:15 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> It appears that this may have been a process violation here - RFC5378
> Section 3.3. Right to Produce Derivative Works seems to say that the
> IETF needs change control before a WG can formally adopt a document. I
> believe that we missed the fact that
On 3/13/17 7:07 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Why "after" and not "during"? That is, if the WG document tells how this
> one method of achieving a set of goals works, why not also document
> other options that could have, and might in the future, be adopted? That
> would certainly give the reader more
On 10/28/15 4:24 AM, yaojk wrote:
It might be your power as chairman. But I think that your arguments
to block the draft discussion is not reasonable.
If I may take some liberty here ... discussion of the draft is
not blocked. Indeed, the primary place for working group discussions
to take
11 matches
Mail list logo
