Subject: Re: A note about draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis Date: Sun, May 05, 2013 at
11:01:02PM -0400 Quoting Scott Kitterman (sc...@kitterman.com):
Personally, I'm quite surprised that doubling the DNS queries associated with
SPF for the foreseeable future is a meh issue to DNS people
On 05/05/2013 11:06 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
Subject: Re: A note about draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis Date: Sun, May 05, 2013 at
11:01:02PM -0400 Quoting Scott Kitterman (sc...@kitterman.com):
Personally, I'm quite surprised that doubling the DNS queries associated with
SPF for the foreseeable
Hi Mark,
At 15:57 04-05-2013, Mark Andrews wrote:
The publisher can choose to interoperate with everyone by publishing
both.
The client side can choose to interoperate with everyone by looking
for both.
Both side can choose their level of interoperability. There is no
bug.
Thanks for the
On 5/5/2013 11:58 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Mark,
At 15:57 04-05-2013, Mark Andrews wrote:
The publisher can choose to interoperate with everyone by publishing
both.
The client side can choose to interoperate with everyone by looking
for both.
Both side can choose their level of
In message 6.2.5.6.2.20130505082013.0adbb...@elandnews.com, S Moonesamy write
s:
Hi Mark,
At 15:57 04-05-2013, Mark Andrews wrote:
The publisher can choose to interoperate with everyone by publishing
both.
The client side can choose to interoperate with everyone by looking
for both.
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 6.2.5.6.2.20130505082013.0adbb...@elandnews.com, S
Moonesamy write
s:
Hi Mark,
At 15:57 04-05-2013, Mark Andrews wrote:
The publisher can choose to interoperate with everyone by publishing
both.
The client side can choose to interoperate with
In message 42523d2d-85c6-4e6d-b2a7-6791a0e5d...@email.android.com, Scott Kitt
erman writes:
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 6.2.5.6.2.20130505082013.0adbb...@elandnews.com, S
Moonesamy write
s:
Hi Mark,
At 15:57 04-05-2013, Mark Andrews wrote:
The publisher can
On Monday, May 06, 2013 10:10:40 AM Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 42523d2d-85c6-4e6d-b2a7-6791a0e5d...@email.android.com, Scott
Kitterman writes:
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 6.2.5.6.2.20130505082013.0adbb...@elandnews.com, S
Moonesamy write
s:
Hi Mark,
At
In message 1962766.G247B9R6HU@scott-latitude-e6320, Scott Kitterman writes:
On Monday, May 06, 2013 10:10:40 AM Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 42523d2d-85c6-4e6d-b2a7-6791a0e5d...@email.android.com, Scott
Kitterman writes:
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message
And if one is worried about keeping automatically generated records
in sync add auto=yes as the first modifier to the automatically
generated record. The two records will remain semantically identical.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871
Hi Doug,
At 16:19 03-05-2013, Doug Barton wrote:
I am not saying that the WG members (or chairs) should be given the
wet-noodle treatment over having reached a bad decision, but what is
cross-area review for if not to catch cases where the WG echo
chamber/tunnel vision/what have you --
In message 6.2.5.6.2.20130504095840.0d4a9...@resistor.net, S Moonesamy writes:
Hi Doug,
At 16:19 03-05-2013, Doug Barton wrote:
I am not saying that the WG members (or chairs) should be given the
wet-noodle treatment over having reached a bad decision, but what is
cross-area review for if
In message 20130504221332.5e8de33e7...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews writes:
In message 6.2.5.6.2.20130504095840.0d4a9...@resistor.net, S Moonesamy
writes:
Hi Doug,
At 16:19 03-05-2013, Doug Barton wrote:
I am not saying that the WG members (or chairs) should be given the
In message 20130504225748.68de733e7...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews writes:
In message 20130504221332.5e8de33e7...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews
writes:
In message 6.2.5.6.2.20130504095840.0d4a9...@resistor.net, S Moonesamy
writes:
Hi Doug,
At 16:19 03-05-2013, Doug Barton
Andrew (and Pete, since he raised a similar issue),
On 05/02/2013 12:50 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Doug,
No hat.
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:22:03PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Given that you can be 100% confident that the issue will be raised
during IETF LC, wouldn't it be better to hash it
Hi Alessandro, Doug,
My task is to keep draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis moving forward and to
maintains a critical and technical perspective of the draft. The two
weeks Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-14 was
announced on April 9, 2013 [1]. The document shepherd review was
On 5/2/2013 9:02 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
If anyone has any objection I suggest raising it during the Last Call.
Given that you can be 100% confident that the issue will be raised
during IETF LC, wouldn't it be better to hash it out in the WG (as we
have attempted to do)? Or is the WG's
Doug,
No hat.
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:22:03PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
Given that you can be 100% confident that the issue will be raised
during IETF LC, wouldn't it be better to hash it out in the WG (as
we have attempted to do)? Or is the WG's position, we have no
intention of dealing
Hi Doug,
At 12:22 02-05-2013, Doug Barton wrote:
Given that you can be 100% confident that the issue will be raised
during IETF LC, wouldn't it be better to hash it out in the WG (as
we have attempted to do)? Or is the WG's position, we have no
intention of dealing with this unless we're
19 matches
Mail list logo
