On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 00:52, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
To be more specific, at least section 5.5 (it is unclear
how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have
changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting
On 2/21/12 2:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti
lore...@google.commailto:lore...@google.com wrote:
I think the suggested change does not go far enough. The high-service-level
domains that prompted this draft to be written, and all the implementers I'm
currently aware of, are decommissioning the practice.
To be more specific, at least section 5.5 (it is unclear how implementers will
judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify
turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will
be for discontinuing this practice) is now incorrect. It *is*
On 2/9/12 01:25 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 00:36, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
mailto:joe...@bogus.com wrote:
Ops is not marketing.
And if I were looking for a marketing venue, a standards body that
produces ASCII text documents read by a handful of engineers
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 00:36, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
Ops is not marketing.
And if I were looking for a marketing venue, a standards body that produces
ASCII text documents read by a handful of engineers would not be high on my
list. This is not about marketing.
If you're
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote:
snip
It seems to me that approximately 30% of the non-biolerplate text in this
draft discusses DNS whitelisting. (And in fact, in its original form the
draft entirely on DNS whitelisting - hence the filename. The rest
On 2/9/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
Or, the way I read you, you tell us that this entire document isn't
relevant anymore.
It cover something called whitelisting that were in use for a short
periode of time for reason no one in a few year can understand as
relevant?
+1
--
On 2/8/12 05:54 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com
mailto:f...@cisco.com wrote:
The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft -
in large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had a second
WGLC, in which you
What specifically would you like changed in the draft? Can you suggest text?
On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in large
part, a rewrite -
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in
large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had a second WGLC, in
which you again declined to comment, although you may have seen Lorenzo's
comments,
In message cakd1yr2xgkeek7sarjmzsbdjps0u5ftozo0qa5ma4fda+sb...@mail.gmail.com,
Lorenzo Colitti writes:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in
large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had
On 4 February 2012 01:35, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I
think. Since this would be published after the announcement of World
IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be
World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I
think. Since this would be published after the announcement of World
IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be updated to discuss its own
applicability in a post- World IPv6 Launch Internet.
On 2 February 2012 00:09, The IESG
I think that although the draft mainly discusses -whitelisting, it can be
more specific in section 2 on issues impacting content delivery over ipv6.
Perhaps the biggest challenge in the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition is that the two
protocols are not compatible; that is, IPv4-only systems cannot
On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I
think. Since this would be published after the announcement of World
IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be updated to discuss its own
applicability in a post- World IPv6
15 matches
Mail list logo
