At 15:21 29-05-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
I didn't say that I support the draft; just what I think could be
done to somewhat mitigate its scope. My personal (non-hat) feeling
about the draft is that if there is
I did not read those messages as meaning that you support the draft
or that there
Joe == Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca writes:
Okay, I felt a bit embarrassed about having said this, so I went
back and reviewed the justification for bringing this forth as an
IETF document. The stated reason for publishing the document as
an IETF document is that there is a
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:44:08AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
but i think the draft in question has very serious privacy issues, and
would like to focus on that, not characterization of the messengers.
The discussion in the security considerations of the -04 draft appears
to me to acknowledge
--On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:25 -0400 Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:44:08AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
but i think the draft in question has very serious privacy
issues, and would like to focus on that, not characterization
of the messengers.
On May 29, 2013, at 12:36 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
If I had been able to figure
out what else to say that would be stronger, constructive, and
not stray into Applicability Statement territory, I would have,
so I'm out of ideas and it is possible that Joe is too.
Even if you
Hi Ted,
On 2013-05-29, at 9:54, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On May 29, 2013, at 12:36 PM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
If I had been able to figure
out what else to say that would be stronger, constructive, and
not stray into Applicability Statement territory, I would
Hi Ted,
At 09:53 29-05-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
too restrained in this regard, IMHO. I would add some text to the
introduction, like this:
The DNS Resource Records described in this document have significant
privacy implications (see section 8). They were developed with the
intention to
On May 29, 2013, at 5:51 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
Here's what I would be told: Scenario a and Scenario b do not have privacy
implications as they have been reviewed by a respected organization in
Canada. I would also be told that there is an Office of the Privacy
Commissioner of
On May 29, 2013, at 6:21 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
I hope the responsible AD for this document will not count me as
participating in the consensus on this document; it was not my intention in
making the suggestion I made to indicate that I favor publishing the
document.
Hi Ted,
On 2013-05-29, at 15:50, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
Okay, I felt a bit embarrassed about having said this, so I went back and
reviewed the justification for bringing this forth as an IETF document. The
stated reason for publishing the document as an IETF document is
--On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 15:42 +0900 Randy Bush
ra...@psg.com wrote:
...
While the RFC should not be materially misleading, I don't
think there is a requirement for Informational RFCs to
guarantee any particular level or security or privacy.
that the draft now tries to slide by as info
What is at issue, IMO, is whether the Internet is better off
having a couple of RRTYPEs around with no documentation or
having them documented.
there are two solutions to this
randy
--On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 20:58 +0900 Randy Bush
ra...@psg.com wrote:
What is at issue, IMO, is whether the Internet is better off
having a couple of RRTYPEs around with no documentation or
having them documented.
there are two solutions to this
Probably more than two if your comment
What is at issue, IMO, is whether the Internet is better off
having a couple of RRTYPEs around with no documentation or
having them documented.
there are two solutions to this
Probably more than two if your comment indicates that you agree
that having registered RRTYPEs documented is, on
On 5/28/13 8:18 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
What is at issue, IMO, is whether the Internet is better off
having a couple of RRTYPEs around with no documentation or
having them documented.
there are two solutions to this
Probably more than two if your comment indicates that you agree
that having
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 12:18:40AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
remove the rrtypes from the registry
While it's good to see that the Internet Exemplary Taste-enForcers are
alive and well, I would have an extremely strong objection to that
approach. The DNS Extensions Working Group published an
remove the rrtypes from the registry
While it's good to see that the Internet Exemplary Taste-enForcers are
alive and well, I would have an extremely strong objection to that
approach.
jck was trying to enumerate alternatives. he omitted one. i am not a
particular advocate of any of them,
17 matches
Mail list logo
