In message <70c7abd5-df78-4f35-89de-152eb1d21...@lilacglade.org>, Margaret Wass
erman writes:
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> > split-brain DNS is an abomination that should be eradicated from the planet
> .
>
> Split DNS exists and is in wide-spread use, and
On Oct 19, 2011, at 1:58 PM,
mailto:teemu.savolai...@nokia.com>>
mailto:teemu.savolai...@nokia.com>> wrote:
Now that you say it, we might state that not any VPN can be trusted by
default (but VPN is an example here), but e.g. a VPN Configuration Profile
could enable the setting for that particula
Ted, thank you for comments.
Please feel free to propose text - I love constructive text proposals:-)
During following week would be nice, if possible, so that we can move
forward with the draft before the next IETF.
Now that you say it, we might state that not any VPN can be trusted by
default
Hi Keith,
On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> split-brain DNS is an abomination that should be eradicated from the planet.
Split DNS exists and is in wide-spread use, and that is just a fact. We don't
have the power to eradicate it, nor do we currently have a better solution for
The DHCP changes look good. You can get multiple selection tuples in DHCPv4 if
you want, but you seem to have decided its not important, which is fine by me.
Let me know if you want me to explain how to do that.
However, I reread the text on server selection, and it still has a serious and
e
On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:26 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Note: I trimmed the cc:s down to just the lists, but if we're going to
> pursue this dicussion we probably ought to follow up in mif, since
> that's where the draft comes from. That's why I set reply-to. Also,
> I sent this first from the wr
On Oct 19, 2011, at 6:39 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
>
> When new gTLDs are introduced it is likely for brand-name gTLDs that they
> will wish to use bare names in the DNS (i.e. a single label hostname) for
> their primary web sites.
I don't see why IETF should give a flying *#&(*#$ what the owners o
Hi all,
This second WGLC resulted in very few comments. In the DHC WG we discussed
about DHCPv4 option structure and in MIF there was a comment about
document-internal reference bug.
I have now uploaded a version six that contains:
- Fixes to the DHCPv4 option structure
-
Note: I trimmed the cc:s down to just the lists, but if we're going to
pursue this dicussion we probably ought to follow up in mif, since
that's where the draft comes from. That's why I set reply-to. Also,
I sent this first from the wrong address, so apologies to those who
see it twice.
On Wed,
Note: I trimmed the cc:s down to just the lists, but if we're going to
pursue this dicussion we probably ought to follow up in mif, since
that's where the draft comes from. That's why I set reply-to.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 07:23:15AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> I don't see why IETF should give
On 19 Oct 2011, at 07:42,
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This second WGLC resulted in very few comments. In the DHC WG we discussed
> about DHCPv4 option structure and in MIF there was a comment about
> document-internal reference bug.
>
> I have now uploaded a version six that contains:
> -
11 matches
Mail list logo