On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 09:50:09PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Less flippantly, it is in this email:
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg13004.html I
> don't think that we have a really good motivation for a week, other
> than that is feels sort of like a good, human scale t
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10: No Objection
>
Thank for you review. I have posted a new version in github at
https://github.com/wkumari/draft-livingood-dnsop-negative-tr
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines.
Hum… The then director has no recollection of that and a request to ICANN to
produce such a letter was denied. All we have is an assertion that a request
was made.
Neither Herb, nor Bob have any idea what happened. In the interests of
openness & transparency, one might expect less demure beha
Jaap,
>> Thanks. I didn't check the tables before writing. I was pretty sure
>> xq wasn't already assigned to a specific country or territory, but I
>> didn't think about a '1918' style designation of two letter codes.
>> Perhaps we need another subset to put these into. It would be a
>> 'final'
No.
At the time, the Administrative Contact as listed in the IANA Whois database
was USC-ISI. They (IIRC, the Director of ISI) requested the TLD to be removed
from the root zone.
Regards,
-drc
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 12:57 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 7, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Dr Eberhard
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Ple
With the WG Chairs permission.
RFC 2181 is growing a both long in the tooth. It is, by its own admission, a
collection of eight distinct and independent ideas. As such, it is difficult
to work on one of
those ideas without raising concerns about all of them. With some coworkers,
we split o
With the WG Chairs permission.
RFC 2181 is growing a both long in the tooth. It is, by its own admission, a
collection of eight distinct and independent ideas. As such, it is difficult
to work on one of
those ideas without raising concerns about all of them. With some coworkers,
we split o
On 7/8/15, 13:51, "DNSOP on behalf of Rubens Kuhl" wrote:
>
>> Em 08/07/2015, à(s) 14:33:000, Edward Lewis
>>escreveu:
>>
>> On 7/8/15, 7:36, "Suzanne Woolf" wrote:
>>
>>> For example, the distinction between gTLDs and ccTLDs is of great
>>> importance to ICANN and to participants in its deci
Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Plea
> Em 08/07/2015, à(s) 14:33:000, Edward Lewis escreveu:
>
> On 7/8/15, 7:36, "Suzanne Woolf" wrote:
>
>> For example, the distinction between gTLDs and ccTLDs is of great
>> importance to ICANN and to participants in its decisions, but of less
>> obvious relevance to an application developer o
On 7/8/15, 7:36, "Suzanne Woolf" wrote:
>For example, the distinction between gTLDs and ccTLDs is of great
>importance to ICANN and to participants in its decisions, but of less
>obvious relevance to an application developer or DNS operator who sees
>only "name that gets a positive response to a
On Jul 8, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Hugo Maxwell Connery wrote:
> I posit that continued inaction on the question of "Does the .onion case
> fit the RFC6761 mechanism" actually weakens the reputation of the IETF, and
> certainly that of DNSOP.
>
> I acknowledge that it is important to have discussion
On 26.6.2015 22:45, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 2015, at 11:24 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance is a nice idea in general but
>> current version of "Roadblock Avoidance", section 5, version 01 has a
>> significant drawback:
>>
>> Else if the r
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Warren Kumari wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Terry Manderson
> wrote:
>> Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact
Hi,
Thanks, Suzanne for your thoughtful contribution.
I posit that continued inaction on the question of "Does the .onion case
fit the RFC6761 mechanism" actually weakens the reputation of the IETF, and
certainly that of DNSOP.
I acknowledge that it is important to have discussion and a wide ra
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Terry Manderson
wrote:
> Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dnsop-negative-trust-anchors-10: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC li
On 30.6.2015 01:55, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Section 3 contains a obvious error
>
> "192.0.2.1 -> 2.0.192.in-addr.arpa." should be
> "192.0.2.1 -> 1.2.0.192.in-addr.arpa."
Thank you, I've fixed it in the Git repo.
I would really appreciate more feedback about Section 4 and definition of
canonicaliz
Colleagues,
As we pursue this discussion, I think it would be helpful to focus on
attributes that are visible and relevant from the perspective of DNS operators,
with an eye towards guidance we might provide to them and applications
developers.
For example, the distinction between gTLDs and cc
Hi,
On 07/07/2015 12:29, Tony Finch wrote:
John Dickinson wrote:
We have just submitted a -02 update to the 5966bis draft.
I have read through this draft. It looks in good shape to me.
A general comment: can you please grep for lower-case RFC 2119 keywords
and either upper-case them or repla
> From: Bob Harold
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:20 AM, wrote:
>
>> Akira Kato and I submitted draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse-01.
>>
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujiwara-dnsop-nsec-aggressiveuse/
>>
>>
>> ...
>
>> --
>> Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS
>>
>> I am concerned that t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
That corresponds to my recollection.
el
On 2015-07-08 08:57, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>> On Jul 7, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Dr Eberhard Lisse
>> wrote: My recollection is somewhat different from the AC
>> "requesting" the revocation.
>
> I meant the Depart
Steve Crocker writes:
> >> xq
> >
> > 'pq' is a better example. 'xq' is classified as User Assigned, which
> > means it has been assigned for use by anyone for their own purposes. 'pq'
> > is (using Wikipedia�s term) unassigned.
>
> Thanks. I didn't check the tables before writing.
> On Jul 7, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
> My recollection is somewhat different from the AC "requesting" the
> revocation.
I meant the Department of the Interior. If I’m remembering correctly.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed
Steve Crocker writes:
> > For the alpha 3-code the complete user assigned set is:
> >
> >AAA-AAZ, QMA-QZZ, XAA-XZZZ and ZZA to ZZZ
> >
> > so one could argue that the delegations for TLD xyz (and maybe xxx) is
> > a actually against the rules in ICANN�s Application Guide Book.
>
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
