On 14/02/2013 23:02, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, all,
By popular request, I've restored the DNS calculator function as an
operational service. See:
http://www.isi.edu/touch/tools/dns-calc.html
(this was designed for a Sigcomm OO session, but it's been used several
places as an example why the
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:02:48PM -0800,
Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote
a message of 16 lines which said:
By popular request, I've restored the DNS calculator function as an
operational service.
Why no delegation from postel.org? It is not really DNS if you have to
use an explicit name
Hi Melinda,
At 16:37 14-02-2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
It seems to me that this kind of misses the point. Consensus-
based decision making is not simply not voting, but it's processy
and a mechanism for reaching a decision collaboratively. Unfortunately
Yes (not including the first sentence).
I agree that many don't understand how consensus is targeted. Suggest
that the draft to be more related to participant discussions and
reasonable disputes. However, IMHO, we need first enogh discussions to
get to rough consensus, so the IETF WG Chairs should not ignore any
input only after the
On 2/15/13 3:04 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I agree that many don't understand how consensus is targeted. Suggest
that the draft to be more related to participant discussions and
reasonable disputes.
Absolutely not.
Melinda
my take is that we have advanced to that stage of organizational life
where we have newcomers who, when faced with a new culture with subtle
process, are led by personal and/or cultural background to assert that
the process should be changed to a model which they already understand,
and for it to
On 2/15/13 7:22 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
thanks, melinda,
for having the patience to try and educate.
I have to apologize for being sleep-deprived and short (well, not
*short* short). I think that so far the discussion has been
productive and I would really hate to see it derailed. As nearly
as
Just to level set: I had not really intended for this document to be
discussed on the IETF general list quite yet. It still has quite a few
gaping holes. So even though it is posted as an I-D, I'm inclined to
have people send comments to me individually for the time being. If and
when I think
On 2/15/2013 12:19 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 03:02:48PM -0800,
Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote
a message of 16 lines which said:
By popular request, I've restored the DNS calculator function as an
operational service.
Why no delegation from postel.org? It is
On 2/14/2013 3:07 PM, Marco Davids (Prive) wrote:
Op 15-02-13 00:02, Joe Touch schreef:
By popular request, I've restored the DNS calculator function as an
operational service. See:
http://www.isi.edu/touch/tools/dns-calc.html
Great! But I was hoping it would do DNSSEC by now.
Like
Not to oversimplify the problem or the pursuit for a solution, I think
there are some possible simple, but perhaps not practical, solutions to
the concerns you cite.
- Faster Reviews, Resolutions by external people, i.e. IESG or a new
technical review group specifically for this purpose.
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Dave Crocker
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:06 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Remote Participation Services
[WEG] changed subject line to reflect actual topic
If a meeting has good structure, management and
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Initial Version (-00) cut-
off is this coming Monday, February 18th, 2013. Please note that, because
the AMS office is closed this Monday, manual submissions will not be
processed until Tuesday, February 19th.
All Initial Version (-00) submissions
On 02/15/2013 12:46 PM, George, Wes wrote:
[WEG] Perhaps it would be helpful to make an informal recommendation to WG chairs (via
the wiki, for example) that generally they should carve each request for agenda time
roughly in half, with a hard limit of $speaker_time/2 devoted to presenting
or
On 2/15/2013 9:46 AM, George, Wes wrote:
[WEG] Perhaps it would be helpful to make an informal recommendation
to WG chairs (via the wiki, for example) that generally they should
carve each request for agenda time roughly in half, with a hard limit
of $speaker_time/2
You are looking for an
On 15 feb 2013, at 18:19, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
- the Bert version uses DNS strings that aren't valid
(*, +, ',', ++)
Are we going to open again the question whether the DNS protocol can handle any
value in the octets, as compared to the hostname definition that says
On 2/15/2013 2:06 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 15 feb 2013, at 18:19, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
- the Bert version uses DNS strings that aren't valid
(*, +, ',', ++)
Are we going to open again the question whether the DNS protocol can handle any
value in the octets,
- the Bert version uses DNS strings that aren't valid
(*, +, ',', ++)
this is not an accident
Are we going to open again the question whether the DNS protocol can
handle any value in the octets, as compared to the hostname definition
that says something more limited? ;-)
no need. the
On Feb 15, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
On 15 feb 2013, at 18:19, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
- the Bert version uses DNS strings that aren't valid
(*, +, ',', ++)
Are we going to open again the question whether the DNS protocol can handle
any
--On Friday, February 15, 2013 14:10 -0800 Joe Touch
to...@isi.edu wrote:
Let's just say that there doesn't appear to be disagreement
that the DNS can handle a-z/0-9/'-'.
Other values _may or may not_ be permitted or handled opaquely
in the lookup, AFAICT. It remains a question AFAICT.
On 2/15/2013 3:17 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, February 15, 2013 14:10 -0800 Joe Touch
to...@isi.edu wrote:
Let's just say that there doesn't appear to be disagreement
that the DNS can handle a-z/0-9/'-'.
Other values _may or may not_ be permitted or handled opaquely
in the
Let's see, here is the list of RFCs that the RFC Editor believes
update RFC 1035:
RFC 1101, RFC 1183, RFC 1348, RFC 1876, RFC 1982, RFC 1995, RFC 1996,
RFC 2065, RFC 2136, RFC 2181, RFC 2137, RFC 2308, RFC 2535, RFC 2845,
RFC 3425, RFC 3658, RFC 4033, RFC 4034, RFC 4035, RFC 4343, RFC 5936,
RFC
On 2/15/13, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
my take is that we have advanced to that stage of organizational life
where we have newcomers who, when faced with a new culture with subtle
process, are led by personal and/or cultural background to assert that
the process should be changed to a
Joe Touch wrote:
Seems clear to me:
RFC1035:
The labels must follow the rules for ARPANET host names. They must
start with a letter, end with a letter or digit, and have as interior
characters only letters, digits, and hyphen. There are also some
restrictions on the length. Labels
On 15 feb 2013, at 23:45, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
Sure -- the DNS protocol *cannot* handle any value in the octets -- in
fact, there are an *infinite* number of values it cannot handle *in the
octets*. For example, it cannot handle 257. It also cannot handle 321, nor
On 16 feb 2013, at 01:48, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
(I was focused on looking up A records given FQDNs)
Thats a different thing than talking about what the DNS protocol can handle.
Patrik
On 16 Feb 2013 07:03, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se wrote:
On 15 feb 2013, at 23:45, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net wrote:
Sure -- the DNS protocol *cannot* handle any value in the octets --
in fact, there are an *infinite* number of values it cannot handle *in the
octets*. For example,
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Deployment Considerations for Dual-Stack Lite'
(draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-08.txt) as Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Softwires Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Brian Haberman.
A URL
This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Initial Version (-00) cut-
off is this coming Monday, February 18th, 2013. Please note that, because
the AMS office is closed this Monday, manual submissions will not be
processed until Tuesday, February 19th.
All Initial Version (-00) submissions
29 matches
Mail list logo
