On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 07:03:13PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
I have asked the IESG and the ISOC Attorney to intervene in this matter,
informally.
Let me personally add that I find this a very sad moment in the already
sorry history of DNS standardisation...
Bert
--
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:18:23AM +0200,
bert hubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 17 lines which said:
I have asked the IESG and the ISOC Attorney to intervene in this matter,
informally.
Let me personally add that I find this a very sad moment in the already
sorry history of
At Tue, 5 Jun 2007 08:23:52 -0400,
Andrew Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Title : Considerations for the use of DNS Reverse Mapping
Author(s) : D. Senie, A. Sullivan
Filename: draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations-03.txt
Pages
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
There is an appearance of impropriety because Austein is on both sides
of the transaction: For ISC and also for IETF DNSOP WG.
What transaction are you referring to? Please be specific. I was
not aware of any exchange of services, money, patents,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 07:10:27PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
Thanks for the update. I've read the 03 version, and found that most
of my previous comments
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05418.html
were not actually addressed (or perhaps ignored or rejected?).
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alan Barrett wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dean Anderson wrote:
There is an appearance of impropriety because Austein is on both sides
of the transaction: For ISC and also for IETF DNSOP WG.
What transaction are you referring to? Please be specific. I was
not aware
Dear colleagues,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:07:34PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
I'm working on a longer analysis of the issues and the dispute.
I'm becoming frustrated by this discussion for two reasons.
First, there is precious little discussion in this thread of the
proposal on the table
hat wg-chair=on
At Sat, 02 Jun 2007 18:15:04 -0700, I wrote:
This is a call to confirm the decision made at the face to face WG
meeting in Prague to adopt draft-koch-dnsop-resolver-priming.
Discussion in Prague showed reasonably strong support and no
objections, but as always,
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Which brings me to my second problem. As nearly as I can tell, there
are no clear conflict of interest guidelines for working groups in
general, and the IETF has previously concluded that such a state of
affairs is a good thing.
I don't know
