Well we finally tracked down the problem
Part of the delay was, I was not going to submit a fake ID to run this
down, but was just working toward the -01 version which I submitted
yesterday.
Dave CROCKER wrote:
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
But the short of it is that only a small
On Dec 28, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
...
This message is to announce that the IETF Trustees have adopted
on a new version of the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP), to be
effective 28
December, 2009. The Grace period for old-boilerplate will begin on
that
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
...
Because it was the date you suggested in your email December 2, 2009
10:00:47 AM EST :
For rfc2629.xslt, the answer is I'd prefer not to. The reason being
that cutover dates on day 1 of a month will be much easier to maintain
in the long term, and also I'd like
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, John Levine wrote:
But I see little wisdom in adding another does-not-exist name with
semantics not meaningfully different from .INVALID or FOO.INVALID.
I think the semantics are meaningfully different, in that applications
are allowed to know that .invalid is special, but
In article 20091230172534.gb1...@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za you write:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009, John Levine wrote:
But I see little wisdom in adding another does-not-exist name with
semantics not meaningfully different from .INVALID or FOO.INVALID.
I think the semantics are meaningfully different, in
On 2009-12-30, at 14:13, John Levine wrote:
Aren't we arguing in circles here? The original proposal was for an
RFC to mark SINK.ARPA as special.
To be slightly pedantic, it was a proposal to make a policy decision that the
name SINK.ARPA should not be made to exist by those responsible for
Aren't we arguing in circles here? The original proposal was for an
RFC to mark SINK.ARPA as special.
The proposal did not seek to update the behaviour of protocols or applications
to treat SINK.ARPA any differently from any other name in the DNS.
Right. For all practical purposes, its
