SM,
I assumed that the message was generated by the data tracker.
The secretariat sends out last call and WG review messages, but the data comes
from the tracker. For WGs, this is actually a relatively recent addition. A
while ago the proposed charters were not tracked in the database. In any
given the nature of the TXT RR, in particular the RDATA field,
I presume it is the path of prudence to set the barrier to registration
in this new IANA registry to be -VERY- low.
Or is the intent to create a two class system, registered and unregistered
types?
/bill
On 30August2013Friday, at
I was asked to review the 08 version but my comments from 07 were not
addressed and I did not see any response. So I am resending my previous
review
As for making it a standard track document, I am not sure since it looks to
me as an overview and not standard. And there is no normative language
On Aug 31, 2013, at 12:10 AM, S Moonesamy sm+i...@elandsys.com wrote:
announcement really ought to just point to the datatracker, since what's
there is normative.
This is an individual opinion. Please assume that the entire IETF disagrees
with it. The datatracker is not the authoritative
--On Saturday, August 31, 2013 02:52 -0700 manning bill
bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
given the nature of the TXT RR, in particular the RDATA field,
I presume it is the path of prudence to set the barrier to
registration in this new IANA registry to be -VERY- low.
That is indeed the intent. If
Hi Roni,
I didn't see your previous review for some reason. I can't respond in full
now as I'm about to travel, but I will over the long weekend (unless Andrew
gets to it first).
Thanks,
-MSK
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Roni Even ron.even@gmail.com wrote:
I was asked to review
The IAB has selected Russ Mundy to serve on the 2014 ICANN NOMCOM. An active
member in the IETF and ICANN communities, Russ serves as a vice-chair of the
Security Stability Advisory Committee of ICANN and has been an active
participant in the IETF for many years, having implemented DNSSEC.
On 31 aug 2013, at 18:33, IAB Chair iab-ch...@iab.org wrote:
An active member in the IETF and ICANN communities, Russ serves as a
vice-chair of the Security Stability Advisory Committee of ICANN and has
been an active participant in the IETF for many years, having implemented
DNSSEC.
Patrik:
Thanks for the correction. The error is mine.
Russ
On Aug 31, 2013, at 12:51 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 31 aug 2013, at 18:33, IAB Chair iab-ch...@iab.org wrote:
An active member in the IETF and ICANN communities, Russ serves as a
vice-chair of the Security Stability
It seems like this would be a good time for an update. A few
comments:
. I think there are a few things that we've been taking for
granted that everybody knows, because they did, but that
may not longer be the case and consequently they should be
made explicit. One that really popped out
On Aug 31, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like this would be a good time for an update. A few
comments:
. I think there are a few things that we've been taking for
granted that everybody knows, because they did, but that
may not longer be the
On 8/31/2013 11:02 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
. I'd like to see some mention of consensus-seeking behavior;
that is to say, we make decisions on the basis of rough
consensus and so the goal of discussion should be to build
consensus rather than to win.
+10.
Might be worth referencing
Pete, what is that draft waiting on before becoming an Informational RFC?
At 11:02 31-08-2013, Melinda Shore wrote:
It seems like this would be a good time for an update. A few
comments:
. I think there are a few things that we've been taking for
granted that everybody knows, because they did, but that
may not longer be the case and consequently they should be
The draft does not assure that existing usages are compatible
with each other.
Still, the draft may assure new usages compatible with each other.
However, people who want to have new (sub)types for the new usages
should better simply request new RRTYPEs.
If we need subtypes because 16bit RRTYPE
Along with the other recent drafts for streamlining the RFC process, I
get the feeling even this new drafting on conduct is simply going to
be a new rubber stamping tool to shut down the process of due diligent
engineering discussions, required cross areas reviews, including
increasing
Hi Hector,
At 14:50 31-08-2013, Hector Santos wrote:
Along with the other recent drafts for streamlining the RFC process,
I get the feeling even this new drafting on conduct is simply going
to be a new rubber stamping tool to shut down the process of due
diligent engineering discussions,
On 08/31/2013 09:52 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Lars Eggert made the following comment:
I actually WANT this draft to talk about the CONSEQUENCES (posting
rights
getting taken away, personal attendance made impossible, etc.) of not
following the code of conduct! I think that would be by
Hi William,
At 21:41 31-08-2013, William McCall wrote:
Just one point that irks me a bit about this draft... this draft
would imply the violation of the code upon those who do (however
inadvertently) are 1) Native English speakers and 2) use slang of
some nature (which is quite arbitrary). I'd
The IAB has selected Russ Mundy to serve on the 2014 ICANN NOMCOM. An active
member in the IETF and ICANN communities, Russ serves as a vice-chair of the
Security Stability Advisory Committee of ICANN and has been an active
participant in the IETF for many years, having implemented DNSSEC.
Patrik:
Thanks for the correction. The error is mine.
Russ
On Aug 31, 2013, at 12:51 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
On 31 aug 2013, at 18:33, IAB Chair iab-ch...@iab.org wrote:
An active member in the IETF and ICANN communities, Russ serves as a
vice-chair of the Security Stability
21 matches
Mail list logo
