Re: [DNSOP] re original_transport indicator

Martin Thomson writes: > I think that a better choice is message/dns. I personally prefer this to dns-udpwireformat / dns-wireformat ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Re: [DNSOP] Status of draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis

On 5 Mar 2018, at 08:14, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Greetings. As you can see, draft-ietf-dnsop-terminology-bis-09.txt is out. > Reading the diff might be a bit difficult because of the reorganization of > some sections that y'all asked for, but I think the result is worth

Re: [DNSOP] re original_transport indicator

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:29 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: > my original design added an http header, which was seen as even worse. > someone suggested adding to the content-type, and i went along with it even > though there is no difference in actual type of actual content. A header

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Suzanne Woolf wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks all for vigorous discussion, but I think it would be helpful to > separate comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel from general comments > on WG guidelines for future documents. > Yup, I fully

Re: [DNSOP] re original_transport indicator

Martin Thomson wrote: +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

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Hi, Thanks all for vigorous discussion, but I think it would be helpful to separate comments on draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel from general comments on WG guidelines for future documents. > On Apr 6, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Job Snijders wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On Apr 6, 2018, at 14:43, 神明達哉 wrote: > At Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:15:47 +, > Job Snijders wrote: > >> 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.

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

At Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:15:47 +, Job Snijders wrote: > 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

Re: [DNSOP] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-wessels-dns-zone-digest-00.txt

At Tue, 3 Apr 2018 21:32:04 +, "Wessels, Duane" wrote: > This draft proposes a technique and new RR type for calculating and > verifying a message digest over the contents of a zone file. Using > this technique, the recipient of a zone containing the new RR type > can

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

Dear Warren, On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 08:37:15AM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > > 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

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

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 > report available for review and

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 at 14:01, Petr Špaček wrote: > On 6.4.2018 13:18, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:35, tjw ietf wrote: > > > >> After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I feel > >> we're ready to take this to WGLC. > >> > >> (We are

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On 6.4.2018 13:18, Peter van Dijk wrote: > On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:35, tjw ietf wrote: > >> 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) > > Especially given that an

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for: draft-ietf-dnsop-kskroll-sentinel

On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:35, tjw ietf wrote: 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) Especially given that an implementation is in fact available (in Knot), why not take