Look for draft-ietf-dnsop-default-local-zones-02 in the
I-D repository soon.
In the mean time you can find it here.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~marka63/draft-andrews-full-service-resolvers.html
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley
> I also concur with the various protests against using . for the RNAME,
> and would suggest instead "nobody.localhost." along with a ref to
> 2606. That should be sufficiently clear to any human who looks at it,
> and also meets the goal of not providing any useful data to a spam bot.
No
At 07 Jun 2007 05:38:19 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Sullivan) writes:
>
> > I note that in section 2.2.3, we have this:
> >
> >A zone's name servers should be reachable by all IP transport
> >protocols (e.g., IPv4 and IPv6) in common use.
> >
> > I have rea
On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Coming back to the issue at hand, I see no need for misconceptions
about IPR to detract work on draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.
Thierry, when people much smarter and more experienced than you have
to defend themselves from you by doing wor
Still off-topic, but please let me, for once, provide a constructive
answer to a legitimate concern voiced by Bill:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually, the key point here is that apparently a number of
(good) people are avoiding the IETF process because they
believe their ideas,
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
> I agree with your other post that such (IPR related!!??) discussions may
> prevent dnsop from addressing the on-topic issue, i.e. a consensus-based
> DNSSEC root priming specification.
It is not the "IPR discussion" that is preventing this. It's the IPR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (bmanning) writes:
>
> actually, the key point here is that apparently a number of
> (good) people are avoiding the IETF process because they
> believe their ideas, intended to be partof open standards
> development, are being patented by others and then
Dear colleagues,
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 05:24:21PM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
> It's done. See
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=856
Thanks.
Having read the disclosure, having quickly read the referenced draft
draft-moreau-srvloc-dnssec-priming-01 including t
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:24:41AM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:20:33AM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
> >
> > OK, 0.02 worth of unsupported personal attacks against me. Out of topic.
> > Counter-productive. Not worth replying.
>
> Perhaps the next time you think some
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 07:18:01AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 7-Jun-2007, at 01:20, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Show me the xml. There should be a way to do a table.
> >
> >
> >
> >0.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 "THIS" NETWORK
> >*/
> >127.
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 10:20:33AM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>
> OK, 0.02 worth of unsupported personal attacks against me. Out of topic.
> Counter-productive. Not worth replying.
Perhaps the next time you think something is not worth replying to,
you could follow that conclusion with what wo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr Thierry Moreau,
[...]
From here, it seems that your patented ideas are designed to [...]
Some may [...] pay you the fees you desire.
BECAUSE you have chosen to [...]
Do you care that the DNS will be weak?
Paul Wouters wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC root
priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible.
You can't have the cake and eat it too. An open discussion seems
impossible if one of the
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 08:28:09AM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
>
> It is in its fight against the well rooted foundations of the patent
> system that the IPR unemcumbrance ideology is counter-productive in the
> present instance.
>
> By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-base
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Thierry Moreau wrote:
> By the way, does IETF dnsop need to discuss a consensus-based DNSSEC root
> priming specification? I whish an open discussion is possible.
You can't have the cake and eat it too. An open discussion seems
impossible if one of the participants will then g
Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Thierry Moreau wrote:
Blindly following the above ideology will result in less and less RFCs,
hence less network standardization and/or standardization made by
entities other than the IETF.
Actually, what would result in fewer and fewer RFCs w
On 7-Jun-2007, at 01:20, Mark Andrews wrote:
Show me the xml. There should be a way to do a table.
0.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 "THIS" NETWORK
*/
127.IN-ADDR.ARPA /* IPv4 LOOP-BACK
NETWORK */
254.169.IN-A
17 matches
Mail list logo
