Thanks All,
What I do want to say if the authors will be in Yokohama, I will gladly
sit down with them and work through the issues raised here. My personal
opinion is I do want new voices and ideas to be heard, and I feel it's
one of my roles as co-chair to offer assistance to folks
Hi all,
Our esteemed chairs have recently outlined a path forward for addressing
the IESG's concerns relating to the implementation of RFC 6761,
triggered by the experience of assessing RFC 7686 ('The ".onion"
Special-Use Domain Name'). The IESG's concerns are summarised in
On 10/28/15 7:03 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
OK. I could produce an updated draft with fixes for those typos to
upload during IETF meeting week but I'm not sure if other changes are
desired.
Thanks,
Donald
Please feel free. We've been through WGLC some time back and we've
gotten strong
Bob Harold wrote:
>
> Reading these various ideas brings up a question in my mind. If a server
> queries for the SOA of a zone and the serial number has not changed, can it
> then assume that all of the entries in its cache for that zone should still
> be valid now, and for
On Friday, October 30, 2015 01:52:18 AM yaojk wrote:
> > in order to utilize expensive high
> > bandwith discussion time
> >
>
>
> I agree with you about this point. We should not waste the high bandwith
> discussion time.We should fully utilize the expensive f2f discusstion
> time.
yao,
Petr,
sorry of my tardiness,
I’m fine with adding text along the lines you outlined, as long as there is
and IPR statement that is inline with the terms you referred.
Wes, do you agree ?
Olafur
> On Oct 23, 2015, at 5:38 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
>
> On 7.10.2015 17:47,