Hello authors and WG chairs,
On my review comments from Nov-10, 2007, I did not receive answers to my
comments from you, yet.
As this draft is planned to be discussed on the IESG telechat, could you
please clarify how you intend to answer to these things (correct, reject
or whether we shall raise
Dear Tobias,
First of all apologies for inadvertent delay in response due to various factors
(vacation, travel and some sickness). However, the authors will work to address
all the comments in a separate email to follow soon.
Regards,
Dinesh
-Original Message-
From: Tobias
Hello authors and WG chairs,
On my review comments from Nov-10, 2007, I did not receive answers to my
comments from you, yet.
As this draft is planned to be discussed on the IESG telechat, could you please
clarify how you intend to answer to these things (correct, reject or whether we
shall
On Dec 13, 2007 10:48 AM, Russ Housley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You need both physical (power, hardware, location) and
operational (different global prefixes, preferably different
AS's) diversity for reliable DNS.
We knew about this problem, but choose to make the
You need both physical (power, hardware, location) and
operational (different global prefixes, preferably different
AS's) diversity for reliable DNS.
We knew about this problem, but choose to make the announcement
anyway. We are in the process of working out a secondary. I got a
I've changed the subject line because, if this turns into a
discussion, it will be a different one...
--On Wednesday, 12 December, 2007 22:22 -0800 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
2. If the machines the DNS entries point to are, themselves, a
single point of failure, it's not clear
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:25:27AM -0500,
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 40 lines which said:
IMO, it would be really helpful if relevant WGs or other groups
concerned with DNS operations and configurations would take the
question up again, review it, and make some sort
--On Thursday, 13 December, 2007 17:35 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:25:27AM -0500,
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 40 lines which said:
IMO, it would be really helpful if relevant WGs or other
groups concerned with
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 13 December, 2007 17:35 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An important reason why we SHOULD have DNS reliability
(including geographical variety) even if service X is down is
because there are several services, not just the Web.
...
Ned Freed wrote:
keep the MUST for aliases but lose it for lists? I could
live with that too but it would probably force a recycle.
I'd opt for better standard instead of better status
if these choices are in conflict.
I question whether they are in conflict. In particular, I question
--On Wednesday, 12 December, 2007 17:05 -0800 Ned Freed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would prefer to have a reference to 2822upd, but I suspect
this decision dates back to when it wasn't clear that 2822bis
was going to get updated more or less at the same time.
This is, of course, the sort of
The discussion of this topic has died down, so it is time for me to
make a consensus call. It is quite clear to me that the community
does not want to delay the publication of RFCs. Therefore, in this
note, I am asking the RFC Editor to publish RFCs as soon as Auth48 is complete.
If there
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 11:25:27AM -0500,
John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 40 lines which said:
IMO, it would be really helpful if relevant WGs or other
groups concerned with DNS operations and configurations would
take the question up again, review it, and
John C Klensin wrote:
[2822 vs. 2822upd]
This is, of course, the sort of thing that can be changed in an
RFC Editor note if, in fact, 2822 is ready and more or less
concurrent.
Modifying the reference is simple. Removing various NO-WS-CTL,
DEL, and a NUL in 2821bis itself, not inherited
--On Wednesday, 12 December, 2007 17:05 -0800 Ned Freed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would prefer to have a reference to 2822upd, but I suspect
this decision dates back to when it wasn't clear that 2822bis
was going to get updated more or less at the same time.
This is, of course, the
Afilias has agreed to provide DNS services to the IETF. What this
means is all DNS servers will be dual-homed on both IPv4 and IPv6,
and servers will be available in Asia, North America, and Europe as
follows:
ns1.ams1.afilias-nst.info (Amsterdam)
199.19.48.151
199.19.48.171
This is a short survey about your IETF meeting experiences
generally,your interest in specific meeting locations and if you
attended IETF 70 your experience in Vancouver. Results will be used to
make improvements at future meetings. You can see the results of the
survey at the end. Feedback
Question for the two lists -
Since many of the IETF's operations are physically located in the US those
laws constrain the operations of the IETF pretty much... So let me ask this,
Since the new Digital Evidence requirements in the US now mandate a much
stronger set of management processes,
Total of 69 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Dec 14 00:53:02 EST 2007
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
13.04% |9 | 11.68% |49719 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5.80% |4 | 13.49% |57421 | [EMAIL
19 matches
Mail list logo
