On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 10:09:50PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> I think I heard that ISC was considering adding support, but was
> planning on waiting till RFC / some sort of LC.
Yes. The work in progress is available here:
https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9/merge_requests/123
--
Evan Hu
Martin Thomson writes:
> I think that a better choice is message/dns.
I personally prefer this to dns-udpwireformat / dns-wireformat
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On 5 Mar 2018, at 08:14, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings. As you can see, draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-09.txt is out.
> Reading the diff might be a bit difficult because of the reorganization of
> some sections that y'all asked for, but I think the result is worth the extra
> effort.
>
>
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> my original design added an http header, which was seen as even worse.
> someone suggested adding to the content-type, and i went along with it even
> though there is no difference in actual type of actual content.
A header field isn't all bad.
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks all for vigorous discussion, but I think it would be helpful to
> separate comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel from general comments
> on WG guidelines for future documents.
>
Yup, I fully agree -- these have become
Martin Thomson wrote:
+1 to this.
And maybe there is an outcome that doesn't need this parameter. I
probably misunderstood some of the expectations people have for the
parameter. With the benefit of time and sleep, it's possible that I
now understand the disconnect.
My model of content-type
Hi,
Thanks all for vigorous discussion, but I think it would be helpful to separate
comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel from general comments on WG
guidelines for future documents.
> On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Job Snijders wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:37:15AM -0400, Wa
On Apr 6, 2018, at 14:43, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:15:47 +,
> Job Snijders wrote:
>
>> While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the be
>> explicit to avoid any confusion.
>>
>> This document is *not* ready for publication. There is no implementation
>> repo
At Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:15:47 +,
Job Snijders wrote:
> While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the be
> explicit to avoid any confusion.
>
> This document is *not* ready for publication. There is no implementation
> report available for review and consideration.
(After
At Tue, 3 Apr 2018 21:32:04 +,
"Wessels, Duane" wrote:
> This draft proposes a technique and new RR type for calculating and
> verifying a message digest over the contents of a zone file. Using
> this technique, the recipient of a zone containing the new RR type
> can verify it for completen
On Apr 6, 2018, at 09:45, Job Snijders wrote:
> While you are right that it is useful to define what is required for
> what sort of document, but I'd like to observe that at this moment, we
> are looking at a draft with 0 (zero, null, nada) implementations*, and
> also no implementation report dr
Dear Warren,
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:37:15AM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> > While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the
> > be explicit to avoid any confusion.
> >
> > This document is *not* ready for publication. T
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the be
> explicit to avoid any confusion.
>
> This document is *not* ready for publication. There is no implementation
> report available for review and consideration.
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 at 14:01, Petr Špaček wrote:
> On 6.4.2018 13:18, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:35, tjw ietf wrote:
> >
> >> After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I feel
> >> we're ready to take this to WGLC.
> >>
> >> (We are aware of the two points
On 6.4.2018 13:18, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:35, tjw ietf wrote:
>
>> After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I feel
>> we're ready to take this to WGLC.
>>
>> (We are aware of the two points raised my Job and Paul)
>
> Especially given that an implemen
On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:35, tjw ietf wrote:
After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I
feel
we're ready to take this to WGLC.
(We are aware of the two points raised my Job and Paul)
Especially given that an implementation is in fact available (in Knot),
why not take thi
16 matches
Mail list logo
