Mark,
On 04/04/2018 03:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Note that implicit RRSIG deletion is idempotent, so it does not matter if two
RRs in the MIXFR trigger it.
Not if you are processing the additions on a RR by RR basis. You can add a new
RRSIG
before you add the covering RR. You need to perf
Dear kskroll sentinel authors, working group,
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:45:18AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
> With the submission of the -11 version of this draft the authors are
> of the view that all WG comments have been discussed, and we think we
> are now ready for a WG Last Call on this docu
On 5 Apr 2018, at 5:44, Job Snijders wrote:
Dear kskroll sentinel authors, working group,
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 11:45:18AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
With the submission of the -11 version of this draft the authors are
of the view that all WG comments have been discussed, and we think we
are
After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I feel
we're ready to take this to WGLC.
(We are aware of the two points raised my Job and Paul)
This starts a Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-
sentinel
Current versions of the draft is available here:
https
Hi all,
While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the be
explicit to avoid any confusion.
This document is *not* ready for publication. There is no implementation
report available for review and consideration.
Should the working group produce an implementation report and de
Thanks Job for keeping *me* straight.
Tim
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> While the chair notes awareness of the point I raised, I’d like the be
> explicit to avoid any confusion.
>
> This document is *not* ready for publication. There is no implementation
> re
At Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:22:33 +0200,
Petr Špaček wrote:
> >> This is actually quite a good example of another problem:
> >> Client-subnet was documented for Informational purposes; it was
> >> already in wide use in the public internet and had an EDNS opt code
> >> codepoint allocated from the IANA
What is work: An "informational" document being used as standard is people
taking a submitted (expired) draft as "standard"?
Tim
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:39 PM, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:22:33 +0200,
> Petr Špaček wrote:
>
> > >> This is actually quite a good example of another p
At Thu, 5 Apr 2018 13:46:29 -0400,
tjw ietf wrote:
> What is work: An "informational" document being used as standard is people
> taking a submitted (expired) draft as "standard"?
I'm not sure how to interpret it (not even sure if it's a question to
me)...but I guess what I think is the most imp
Hi All,
We've had quite a thread re the -05 optional parameter to the
dns-udpwireformat registration.
The parameter is defined as having no meaning for DoH, but was included to
accommodate a use case the dnsop wg is considering. Future proofing, if you
like.
Upon consideration (and a read of 683
Good idea - future-proofing is great in theory, but it sounds like there's a
lot of non-consensus on the DNSOP side that we might end up adding something
that is superseded anyway.
Rory
From: Patrick McManus [mailto:pmcma...@mozilla.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 1:54 PM
To: Martin Thom
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 05:24:33PM +0200, bert hubert wrote:
> allow the one remaining closed source DNS implementation
Really? I'm so pleased we have not only candidate censors of what is
going to be published by the WG but also census-takers who have
determined then number and types of DN
+1 to this.
And maybe there is an outcome that doesn't need this parameter. I
probably misunderstood some of the expectations people have for the
parameter. With the benefit of time and sleep, it's possible that I
now understand the disconnect.
My model of content-type - and by extension its pa
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:31:37PM -0700, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Thu, 5 Apr 2018 13:46:29 -0400,
> tjw ietf wrote:
>
> > What is work: An "informational" document being used as standard is people
> > taking a submitted (expired) draft as "standard"?
>
> I'm not sure how to interpret it (not even sure
14 matches
Mail list logo
