At 18:45 -0500 10/30/06, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 30 October, 2006 18:10 -0500 Edward Lewis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 17:38 -0500 10/30/06, John C Klensin wrote:
That isn't what I said, and I certainly agree with the
principle. I was suggesting a note that indicated that the
PM
To: Geoff Huston; Bernard Aboba; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV)'
to Informational RFC (draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv)
--On Monday, 30 October, 2006 05:27 +1100 Geoff Huston
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I haven't compared draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv
On 30Oct 2006, at 5:38 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
If someone was stating 'I have read the drafts and I have
identified the following issue that will lead to incompatibility'
the issue might be worth IESG time.
When the statement is I haven't compared draft-weiler-dnssec-
dlv-01
I wrote:
This should be a queue for the document editor to step in and
explain if there are issues and, if so, which.
or maybe better phased:
This should be a queue for the document editor (or anybody else) to
step in and explain if there are issues they are aware off, and if
so, which.
-
From: Joe Abley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 4:07 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: John C Klensin; Geoff Huston; Bernard Aboba; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV)'
to Informational RFC (draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv)
On 30-Oct-2006
On 30-Oct-2006, at 16:41, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I agree with Olaf's suggestion that there be an action on the
document author to add a section explaining the relationship of the
draft to existing experimental practice. It seems to me that this
is entirely appropriate in a document
On 30-Oct-2006, at 11:38, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
When the statement is I haven't compared draft-weiler-dnssec-
dlv-01 with the ISC tech note closely, but since the text is
different it seems likely that implementations based on one would
likely differ from those it should
Mark, Sam,
It seems to me that a reference from the draft to the code
description or to Bind 9 more generally, with a note to the
effect that Bind 9 is believed to contain an implementation of
what is being described in the document, could head off a great
deal of confusion... including all of
Mark, Sam,
It seems to me that a reference from the draft to the code
description or to Bind 9 more generally, with a note to the
effect that Bind 9 is believed to contain an implementation of
what is being described in the document, could head off a great
deal of confusion... including
At 17:38 -0500 10/30/06, John C Klensin wrote:
It seems to me that a reference from the draft to the code
description or to Bind 9 more generally, with a note to the
effect that Bind 9 is believed to contain an implementation of
what is being described in the document, could head off a great
--On Monday, 30 October, 2006 18:10 -0500 Edward Lewis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 17:38 -0500 10/30/06, John C Klensin wrote:
It seems to me that a reference from the draft to the code
description or to Bind 9 more generally, with a note to the
effect that Bind 9 is believed to contain
At 03:48 AM 28/10/2006, Bernard Aboba wrote:
Joe Abley said:
Apologies to all concerned if I'm rudely pointing out the elephant in the
living room. This is one of two separate specifications for DLV. The
document at
http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2006-1.txt
describes an approach called
--On Monday, 30 October, 2006 05:27 +1100 Geoff Huston
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I haven't compared draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-01 with the ISC
tech note closely, but since the text is different it seems
likely that implementations based on one would likely differ
from those based on the
Joe Abley said:
Apologies to all concerned if I'm rudely pointing out the elephant in the
living room. This is one of two separate specifications for DLV. The
document at
http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2006-1.txt
describes an approach called DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) which
uses
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 12:24:22PM -0400,
The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
- 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) '
draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-01.txt as an Informational RFC
I've read it, and find no stopping issues. I believe that the
political issue of who
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 06:13:50PM +0200,
Olaf M. Kolkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 218 lines which said:
Is the 1- to-1 overlap allowed?
Certainly, there is even an example (two DLV domains, perhaps
operated by different parties, might target the same zone).
Which one to use,
On 27-Oct-2006, at 09:25, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 12:24:22PM -0400,
The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
- 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) '
draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-01.txt as an Informational RFC
I've read it, and find no
On 18Oct 2006, at 6:24 PM, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider
the following document:
- 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) '
draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-01.txt as an Informational RFC
Dear Colleagues, Sam,
I have reviewed
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) '
draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-01.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.
19 matches
Mail list logo
