In message <4dd39053-3e33-4bd1-a83d-f81219484...@dnss.ec>, Roy Arends writes:
> > On 27 Jul 2017, at 09:08, Shane Kerr wrote:
> >
> > I support the draft, and am willing to contribute text and review!
> >
> > I have a few points now, in fact:
> >
> > 1. Does it make sense to divide the respons
On 26.7.2017 21:46, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Edward Lewis wrote:
>>
>> But the draft itself isn't exactly the way I'd go about solving the
> problem. Does that mean it shouldn't be adopted? I suppose not, I
> suppose the answer is to adopt it and change it mercilessly.
>
> agreed.
I agree. The draft n
> On 27 Jul 2017, at 09:08, Shane Kerr wrote:
>
> I support the draft, and am willing to contribute text and review!
>
> I have a few points now, in fact:
>
> 1. Does it make sense to divide the response codes up into those
> corresponding to each error type? That is, something like 1 fo
Joe Abley wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2017, at 13:28, Richard Gibson wrote:
> >
> > I remain concerned about issuing incomplete responses to ANY queries
> > without indication of such, and predict that it will hinder
> > operational problem investigation and remediation (especially
> > pertaining to IPv4/
Tim,
At 2017-07-25 12:04:04 -0400
tjw ietf wrote:
> This draft was the only one which seemed to have broad support in some form
> during the meeting last week.
To be fair, I think that we could say that this was the only one having
complete support during the meeting. Several drafts had support
