On Fri, 7 Aug 2020, Evan Hunt wrote:
As I said earlier, I think "primary" and "seconary" are well-enough
understood concepts now that we can describe roles in a particular
transaction with phrases like "acting as a primary" or "acting as a
secondary" and get the point across without much difficu
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 7:42 AM Ben Schwartz wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:14 AM Brian Dickson <
> brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> "More than one is permitted" is the case only because of the current spec.
>> I don't see any explanation for why this is (or needs to be) the cas
Michael
You are correct - this is not going anywhere fast. The chairs will be
putting the revised 8499bis up for adoption soon (on return from holiday)
and
you are free to express yourself then.
tim
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:27 PM Michael De Roover wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 10:33 -0400,
On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 10:33 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 2020, at 05:54, Michael De Roover
> > wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > > It’s not controversial.
> > I don't deny that it is regarded as controversial,
>
> As you can see, I said (privately) that
> On Aug 7, 2020, at 05:54, Michael De Roover wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> It’s not controversial.
> I don't deny that it is regarded as controversial,
As you can see, I said (privately) that the problem is not that the use of this
terminology is controversia
On 6 Aug 2020, at 16:41, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Aug 6, 2020, at 4:08 AM, Andrew McConachie
wrote:
What does it mean for a resolver to be primed, or for a resolver to
not be primed? For example, is a resolver considered primed only if
it has all root server names and IP addresses? 50%? At
On Fri, 2020-08-07 at 13:09 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Apologizing in advance for the procedural remark, can I ask what's
> the point of discussing text in an already released document? If
> anyone is unhappy with that, they should just propose another draft
> that updates/obsoletes that docu
> Il 07/08/2020 12:02 Michael De Roover ha scritto:
>
> > > Personally I don't
> > > see anything controversial in it.
> >
> > I suspect you haven’t suffered structural racisms because if the
> > colour of your skin and because of what happened to your grand
> > parents ?
> On a more personal
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 10:01 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2020, at 09:47, Michael De Roover
> wrote:
> > Honestly I wouldn't change it at all. I mean.. why is the use of
> > master/slave controversial anyway?
>
> This sounds very tone deaf. Even if you personally can’t grasp it,
> just
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 09:59 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote:
> It’s not controversial. That is, the problem isn’t that there is
> controversy, although clearly there is, since you’re debating it. The
> problem is also not that it’s offensive, although it is.
I don't deny that it is regarded as controversia
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 9:42 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Sorry you just broke DNSSEC if there are more than one AliasForm records.
> More than one is permitted with the same name.
>
Good point.
"More than one is permitted" is the case only because of the current spec.
I don't see any explanation
On Friday, 7 August 2020 04:18:18 UTC Evan Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 01:04:22AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > what's your proposal?
>
> As I said earlier, I think "primary" and "seconary" are well-enough
> understood concepts now that we can describe roles in a particular
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
