Thomas,
I am in full agreement that document revision and bug fixing is the more
important activity for IETF. Not just in my opinion, but I think we can also
see it from the numbers of bis documents versus numbers of advancing documents.
But I think some amount of bug fixing and revision is
I think you will see that this question was discussed at least once. We asked
about moving to a one-level maturity model instead. The conclusion was that it
was possible to go from a two-level to a one-level in the future if that is
appropriate. However, if we go straight to a one-level now,
--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:57 -0400 Russ Housley
hous...@vigilsec.com wrote:
I think you will see that this question was discussed at least
once. We asked about moving to a one-level maturity model
instead. The conclusion was that it was possible to go from a
two-level to a
Hi, all,
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing
effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for
the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for
their information and to allow them to address any
I've always thought that insistence on the use of RFC 2782 labels with SRV
records unreasonably overconstrained the use of SRV records; and thus, limited
their applicability.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that at the time that 2782 was being drafted
there may have been some belief that
Hi Keith,
On 9/11/2011 1:22 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
I've always thought that insistence on the use of RFC 2782 labels
with SRV records unreasonably overconstrained the use of SRV records;
and thus, limited their applicability.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that at the time that 2782 was
On Sep 11, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
We've been discussing this in the Transport area lately.
DNS SRVs are defined in RFC 2782 as I have described. Additional info is
passed in TXT records for current DNS SRVs.
I.e. what I have proposed is what is both current spec and current
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:57 -0400 Russ Housley
However, if we go straight to a one-level now, and then learn
that a two-level would have been better, we would be stuck.
But, if we go from a three-level to a two-level now, without
compelling evidence that it
On Sep 11, 2011, at 2:09 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Sep 11, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
We've been discussing this in the Transport area lately.
DNS SRVs are defined in RFC 2782 as I have described. Additional info is
passed in TXT records for current DNS SRVs.
I.e. what I
--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 18:01 -0400 Hector
sant9...@gmail.com wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:57 -0400 Russ Housley
However, if we go straight to a one-level now, and then learn
that a two-level would have been better, we would be stuck.
...
But I
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, September 11, 2011 18:01 -0400 Hector
sant9...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW, I was wondering which BIS documents with no RFC
publication dates would be candidates. 93 total.
Based on the first few, there are a bunch of errors in your
list.
Yes, just imported
11 matches
Mail list logo
