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 the
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'
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt as an Informational
RFC
I
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'
draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-08.txt as a BCP
I have reviewed this version
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-Announce message.
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 visual cue
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 abstract says:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:06:20PM -0700, The IESG wrote:
- 'Special Use IPv4 Addresses'
draft-iana-rfc3330bis-06.txt 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
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 that
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 04:12:05PM -0400, The IESG wrote:
- 'DNSSEC Lookaside Validation (DLV) IANA Registry'
draft-weiler-dnssec-dlv-iana-00.txt 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The draft should not be published for at least the following reasons: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
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:
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
Hello Thomas,
{calculation of DNS response sizes is a topic for the IETF DNSOP WG
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html. 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.}
12 matches
Mail list logo
