All
The WG Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format and the chairs
feel we have enough consensus to move this forward.
HOWEVER, two things did come up with some reviews that happened in the
last few days:
- The packet format has a version number, but the draft does not document
or
I have gone over the diffs of the document, and stand by my earlier
assessment that this document is ready for standardization. Please move
it to IETF Last Call.
--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 08:32:42PM -0400,
Tim Wicinski wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
> This starts a Working Group Last Call for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format
At IETF 99 in Prague, I implemented the version of this time
<http://www.bortzmeyer.org/c-dns-tests.ht
We have read this document and think it's ready to move forward.
We've also been using the dns-compactor implementation of this standard and
it has shown itself to be quite stable and robust. We're looking forward
to having this format standardized and hopefully more community interest
than
Hi Tim,
At 02:31 AM 07-07-2018, Tim Wicinski wrote:
There were initial concerns that the IPR was unclear, and never
fully settled.
All the guidance I received was that the issue would be addressed
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2909/
Yes, it is old, but it was the only reference I could dig
There were initial concerns that the IPR was unclear, and never fully
settled.
All the guidance I received was that the issue would be addressed
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2909/
Yes, it is old, but it was the only reference I could dig up.
Tim
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 3:17 AM, S Moonesamy
Hi Tim,
At 05:32 PM 06-07-2018, Tim Wicinski wrote:
One thing which arose early in the process was the issue of IPR and how
it would be resolved. The simple answer is that it is resolved farther
up the process chain. I spent time reading RFC 3979 on this topic:
That RFC is obsolete. What
in the process was the issue of IPR and how
it would be resolved. The simple answer is that it is resolved farther
up the process chain. I spent time reading RFC 3979 on this topic:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3979#section-10
This starts a Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-capture-format
