Dear Colleagues,
This Working Group Last Call has concluded, and we've seen consensus support to
send the document on to the IESG.
Thanks to everyone who spent their time and effort on reviews and discussion,
and to the authors for their careful attention to addressing the comments.
Suzanne &
On 9 Oct 2015, at 15:21, Tim Wicinski wrote:
I've spent some time reviewing this document and I feel that all the
outstanding issues have been addressed, and the document is very well
put together. This is ready for the next step.
This starts a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> ...
>
> For whatever it's worth, I think this outcome shows that the IETF is no
> longer able to take uncontroversial descriptions of what people are doing
> them and process them with anything like the dispatch they deserve. I think
> that's unfortunate and is another
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:30:03PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> So to clear up the lingering ambiguity, the authors are not requesting
> adoption of this document by the working group; we'll pick it up with the
> ISE.
For whatever it's worth, I think this outcome shows that the IETF is
no longer able
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 07:41:38AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> When we published RFC 7108 as an independent submission there was no
> suggestion that the IETF expected to wield change control over the
> operations of L-Root.
Independent submissions are not IETF products. I think that's what
Bill
On 9 Oct 2015, at 12:20, manning wrote:
On 9October2015Friday, at 4:41, Joe Abley wrote:
Aside from the motivation to provide a useful technical specification
in a place where it can be easily found, I continue to feel that it
is important that significant infrastructural elements of the
In
On 9October2015Friday, at 4:41, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>
> On 8 Oct 2015, at 22:25, manning wrote:
>
>> perhaps… I think (well it used to work this way) that regardless of HOW it
>> comes under IETF purview, once it does,
>> it is no longer under the change control of the submitting organizati
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> In a fit of zeal I wrote up what I thought was a reasonable clarification
>> to 1034/1035 with respect to the ordering of RRSets within sections of a
>> response to a DNS QUERY, prompted by the discuss
On 9 Oct 2015, at 10:54, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Joe Abley wrote:
In a fit of zeal I wrote up what I thought was a reasonable
clarification to 1034/1035 with respect to the ordering of RRSets
within sections of a response to a DNS QUERY, prompted by the
discussions on this li
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Joe Abley wrote:
In a fit of zeal I wrote up what I thought was a reasonable clarification to
1034/1035 with respect to the ordering of RRSets within sections of a
response to a DNS QUERY, prompted by the discussions on this list in August,
to which maybe this link is a use
Hi all,
In a fit of zeal I wrote up what I thought was a reasonable
clarification to 1034/1035 with respect to the ordering of RRSets within
sections of a response to a DNS QUERY, prompted by the discussions on
this list in August, to which maybe this link is a useful pointer:
https://mai
On 8 Oct 2015, at 22:25, manning wrote:
perhaps… I think (well it used to work this way) that regardless of
HOW it comes under IETF purview, once it does,
it is no longer under the change control of the submitting
organization.
I think this is a bit of a red herring.
When we published RFC
12 matches
Mail list logo
