Re: Last Call: (IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard

> IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes > draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01 The document strives to convey the message that "IP" is no longer equivalent to "IPv4", which is a goal that I'd fully support. However, while this is a political statement that th

Re: Last Call: (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space) to Informational RFC

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 09:10:25AM -0700, The IESG wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > - 'IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space' >as an Informational > RFC I am a bit confused about the exact purpose o

Re: Last Call: (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 07:02:07PM -0700, The IESG wrote: > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > - 'Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels' >as a BCP I have reviewed this version of the document and also the changes

Re: I-D Working groups and mailing list

On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 10:36:46AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > >>I think I have read some I-D that including this useful information, > >>but most do not. Its one the first things I look for. > >>Just a thought if it makes sense. > > > >+100 > > > >Perhaps it could be included in the ID-Announ

Re: subject_prefix on IETF Discuss?

On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 09:35:16AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > >How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the > >IETF Discussion List (AKA this one!) - this will prefix mail sent to this > >list with something like "[Discussion]" or "[IETF]" or something [0]. > The

Re: RFC 6302: "Internet-Facing Server Logging": No Word about Privacy?

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 02:22:08PM -0400, Dan Wing wrote: > It's trying to say that today, servers routinely log: > > * timestamp > * source IPv4 address > * resource accessed > > and that servers, compliant with RFC6302, need to additionally log: > > * source port at least the abstrac

Re: Last Call: draft-iana-rfc3330bis (Special Use IPv4 Addresses) to Informational RFC

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:06:20PM -0700, The IESG wrote: > - 'Special Use IPv4 Addresses' > as an Informational RFC It is worth documenting the changes to several allocations or assignments since RFC 3330 and the draft does that well. Here are some questions and remarks that could be address

Re: Proposed DNSSEC Plenary Experiment for IETF 74

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:50:56AM -0500, Russ Housley wrote: > I have been approached about a plenary experiment regarding > DNSSEC. The idea is for everyone to try using DNSSEC-enabled clients > during the plenary session. I like the idea. What do others think? I agree with others' views th

Re: Last Call: draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-iana (DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) IANA Registry) to Informational RFC

On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 04:12:05PM -0400, The IESG wrote: > - 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) IANA Registry' > as an Informational RFC > 1. Should it be published? The draft should not be published for at least the following reasons: o Means of Trust Anchor Publication Even if we a

Re: DNS pollution

Edward Lewis made me coment on: > Ironically - in the past year, the DNSOP WG considered a proposal > called "white lies" in which falsified negative answers were to be > used to prevent someone from using DNSSEC records to discover all of What Ed didn't say but could have to avoid myth spread

multi-RFC BCPs [Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-bcp101-update-00.txt]

Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I read the relevant bits of 2026 a couple of times, and I am pretty > convinced that a BCP can only exist as a single RFC (which may or may not section 5.1 of 2026 reads: A specification, or group of specifications, that has, or have been approved as a BCP is ass

Re: 13 Root Server Limitation

Hello Thomas, {calculation of DNS response sizes is a topic for the IETF DNSOP WG . For the basic issues, the archives of the DNSOP mailinglist may help, or even more so (apart from direct replies) one of the DNS related Usenet newsgroups.}