Re: [DNSOP] Special Use Names Summary

2016-10-13 Thread Suzanne Woolf
Hi, Thanks Ted, and more formally: The WG has adopted https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tldr-sutld-ps/ as a DNSOP working group document. As Ted said, the original authors are working on a revision to it, based on the discussion we

Re: [DNSOP] Special Use Names Summary

2016-10-13 Thread Ted Lemon
New version of tldr draft is in the works. When done, criticism solicited. Please, please bear in mind that the point of this document is not to say what to do, but merely to enumerate as complete a set of problems as we can enumerate. The point is not that we are going to solve every one of

Re: [DNSOP] Special Use Names Summary

2016-10-13 Thread hellekin
On 10/07/2016 08:56 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > Special Use Names Summary > Hello DNSOP WG, I let a week pass so that others can comment, but apparently this summary didn't bring much of them. Indeed I have a troubling issue with it: how is that actionable? IOW, what's next? Thank you, ==

Re: [DNSOP] Special Use Names Summary

2016-10-10 Thread joel jaeggli
On 10/7/16 1:56 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > Special Use Names Summary > > > First, thanks to all for a pretty useful discussion. There were a few > things uncovered which are not in either draft. It does appear that the > draft-tldr-sutld-ps is the very rough consensus choice as a starting >

[DNSOP] Special Use Names Summary

2016-10-07 Thread Tim Wicinski
Special Use Names Summary First, thanks to all for a pretty useful discussion. There were a few things uncovered which are not in either draft. It does appear that the draft-tldr-sutld-ps is the very rough consensus choice as a starting point. Both drafts say useful things, and the chairs