Since nobody's mentioned the draft name yet, and we generally tell people
go read the drafts
draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configuration-06.txt
Or - there are 3 options. We can't pick one.
The document was approved by the IESG in July (but seems to be waiting for
an IESG note).
Bill,
--On 11. august 2005 14:14 -0700 Bill Manning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no you don't get it. ask yourself, why is in-addr.arpa special?
or, in the more modren wolrd... where should the enum space
be anchored, e164.arpa, e164.int, e164.bti.gov.uk,
People may also want to read RFC 3646 which defines DHCPv6 options to
configure a DNS resolver.
We have considered _other_ ways to automatically configure a DNS
resolver in IPv6, but we haven't managed to reach consensus on any of
those proposals yet.
Margaret
At 9:55 AM +0200 8/15/05,
On 15-aug-2005, at 14:57, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
People may also want to read RFC 3646 which defines DHCPv6 options
to configure a DNS resolver.
We have considered _other_ ways to automatically configure a DNS
resolver in IPv6, but we haven't managed to reach consensus on any
of those
Hi Iljitsch,
At 3:54 PM +0200 8/15/05, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So you have reached consensus on forcing everyone who wants to look
up DNS information over IPv6 transport to use DHCPv6?
As far as I know, nothing that we publish forces anyone to do
anything (or not to do anything).
On 15-aug-2005, at 18:05, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
So you have reached consensus on forcing everyone who wants to
look up DNS information over IPv6 transport to use DHCPv6?
As far as I know, nothing that we publish forces anyone to do
anything (or not to do anything).
But what's the
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Iljitsch,
At 3:54 PM +0200 8/15/05, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
So you have reached consensus on forcing everyone who wants to look
up DNS information over IPv6 transport to use DHCPv6?
As far as I know, nothing that we publish forces
I have mixed feelings about IETF WGs doing threat analysis. On the one
hand, Internet security is A Big Deal and I agree with what Steve
Bellovin and Brian Carpenter and others have written concerning our need
to improve. Frankly, the current status quo is quite worrisome.
On the other hand,
On 19:32 15/08/2005, Fleischman, Eric said:
Therefore, I fear that either the security community will become even more
overworked or else a whole lot of not-very-helpful text will be produced
or else non-security people will become de facto security people. I'm
hoping for the third result, but
Why doesn't someone just ask Russ what he meant and be done with it?
-Nick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael Thomas
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 7:24 AM
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Cc: Michael Thomas; ietf@ietf.org
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG to
consider the following document:
- 'Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label-Controlled ATM and Frame-Relay
Management Interface Definition '
draft-ietf-mpls-lc-if-mib-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG
11 matches
Mail list logo
