Re: [homenet] [DNSOP] automating RFC2317 via IPv6 reverse map/DHCPv6

Some time back Tony Finch proposed a 2317bis - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc2317bis-00 which the WG adopted but died for lack of interest. It would be useful to revise this document tim On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 5:14 AM Havard Eidnes wrote: > > Hi, while editing

[homenet] Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-19

Reviewer: Tim Wicinski Review result: Ready Hi As one of the assigned reviewers of this document for DNS Directorate for this draft. I have read the other DNS Directorate reviews for this draft, and I agree with how the comments raised are being addressed.I do appreciate the examples

Re: [homenet] [dnsdir] Dnsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-18

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 9:48 AM Michael Richardson via dnsdir < dns...@ietf.org> wrote: > > as> Reviewer: Anthony Somerset > as> Review result: Ready with Nits > > as> Section 3.2 = "SHOULD remain pointing at the cloud provider's > server IP address > as> - which in many cases

Re: [homenet] writeup of my 2018 homenet experience on openwrt

Apologies, I should never use the phone to send emails, I always hit send to do this. I was trying to say cmake on OSX is a real pain, I had this problem a year ago and I ended up doing it in a container. I went back to my computer to find the container, and it's gone, and then I remember it was

Re: [homenet] (no subject)

Instead of calling it a "DNS Server" perhaps call it the "declarative data store"? it could be a git repo, tim On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > The DNS server in the cloud doesn't have to answer queries. Indeed, it > probably shouldn't. It's really just a backing

Re: [homenet] About ULAs in Ted's draft

If you have no ULA, then you may have to fall back to manual creation of the homenet domain in 4.7, which is less than ideal. tim ps - i've read the draft and think it's ready for adoption. Needs some fleshing out, but it's has a good foundation. On 7/19/16 11:22 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:

Re: [homenet] RFC 7788-bis

On 6/16/16 2:48 PM, Ralph Droms wrote: On Jun 16, 2016, at 1:26 PM 6/16/16, Ray Bellis wrote: As was alluded to in my email of 9th June, we have been asked to replace RFC 7788 (HNCP) with an RFC 7788-bis as soon as possible to incorporate the errata raised by the DNSOP chair

Re: [homenet] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7788 (4677)

-- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7788=4677 -- Type: Technical Reported by: Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> Section: 8 Original Text - A network-wide zone is appended to all sin

Re: [homenet] WG adoption of draft-stenberg-homenet-hncp-00

On 3/26/14, 5:30 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: I have read the HNCP draft, and while it is very rough, and lacks greatly in the area of how, being focused on the what, I am happy with the WG adopting it, and then improving it. After reading the draft again, I agree the WG should adopt this,