On 7/16/15 6:44 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Warren Kumari wrote:
We shouldn't be figuring out how useful a WG is by the number of
documents published, but I don't think
On 16 Jul 2015, at 03:15, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org
mailto:paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
On 15 Jul 2015, at 17:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Just on this issue, and speaking only for myself (but as one of the
people behind this document), my view is that this WG has historically
All,
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:33:59 -0400
Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:12PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote:
I am also concerned about the apparent urgency to get the initial document
out with points that admittedly remain contentious and/or where
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Warren Kumari wrote:
We shouldn't be figuring out how useful a WG is by the number of
documents published, but I don't think DNSOP is still where documents
go to die...
On 16 Jul 2015, at 14:14, Suzanne Woolf suzworldw...@gmail.com wrote:
We have been through extensive review and a Working Group Last Call on this
draft. The next revision should go ahead to the IESG.
+1
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
Hi,
This is a good time to remind ourselves of how we got here.
This draft came into the WG as an individual submission, with the authors
seeking comment but not asking for it to be a WG work item. We eventually
adopted it in the expectation that handling it as a WG draft would lead to
higher
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Shane Kerr sh...@time-travellers.org wrote:
All,
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:33:59 -0400
Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:12PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote:
I am also concerned about the apparent urgency to get the
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 01:30:03PM +0200, Warren Kumari wrote:
We shouldn't be figuring out how useful a WG is by the number of
documents published, but I don't think DNSOP is still where documents
go to die...
Agreed, but I also don't want to return to that bleak past where we
could never get
On 15 Jul 2015, at 17:33, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:12PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote:
I am also concerned about the apparent urgency to get the initial
document
out with points that admittedly remain contentious and/or where there
isn't
WG consensus. I don't
On 7/15/15 10:15 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Not only do you agree and acknowledge that, *so does the document*.
Based on the contention and lack of consensus for some of the
definitions, the Introduction now says:
During the development of this document, it became clear that some
DNS-related
Sorry for the top-post. As I understand things, this is more than a choice.
RFC 2181 requires it, I think, no?
--
Andrew Sullivan
Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
On Jul 15, 2015, at 06:00, John Dickinson j...@sinodun.com wrote:
On 14/07/2015 17:26, Casey Deccio wrote:
On Tue, Jul
On 14/07/2015 18:15, Tim Wicinski wrote:
On 7/14/15 12:26 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
This is still contentious, and I think it really should be deferred
to the
-bis document for longer discussion and hopefully consensus.
As far as I can tell from the
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:43:12PM -0400, Casey Deccio wrote:
I am also concerned about the apparent urgency to get the initial document
out with points that admittedly remain contentious and/or where there isn't
WG consensus. I don't think it needs perfection, but it seems unnecessary
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:55:19AM +0100,
John Dickinson j...@sinodun.com wrote
a message of 47 lines which said:
I wouldn't call it a turkey, but I do agree with Tony that deferring
anything contentious to a -bis is a bad way forward,
It's harsh to say that everything contentious have been
On Jul 13 2015, Casey Deccio wrote:
I have a few comments on the latest draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-terminology
(-03). There will be more; I'm part way through a review.
[snip]
3. The current text for referral is incomprehensible. I suggest the
following:
[snip again]
Historically, many
On 13 Jul 2015, at 14:20, Casey Deccio wrote:
1. (stylistic) There are a number of definitions that quote
terminology and
then parenthetically state quoted from. It seems more intuitive,
precise, and consistent to mark quoted text using quotation marks
instead,
as in other definitions.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org
wrote:
On 13 Jul 2015, at 14:20, Casey Deccio wrote:
1. (stylistic) There are a number of definitions that quote terminology
and
then parenthetically state quoted from. It seems more intuitive,
precise, and consistent to
Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
This is still contentious, and I think it really should be deferred to the
-bis document for longer discussion and hopefully consensus.
As far as I can tell from the last few months there is a fairly clear
consensus that the current draft is not good
On 7/14/15 12:26 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
This is still contentious, and I think it really should be deferred to the
-bis document for longer discussion and hopefully consensus.
As far as I can tell from the last few months there is a fairly clear
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/14/15 12:26 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote:
This is still contentious, and I think it really should be deferred to
the
-bis document for longer discussion and hopefully consensus.
20 matches
Mail list logo
