On 3/7/23 01:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
2.) As for the "NXNAME" rrtype, I'd like to propose using rrtype 0 (the NULL type). So far it only
has meaning for "type covered" fields in signature records such as SIG(0) (RFC 2931). There appears
to be no collision with usage in the NSEC type bitmap, an
Hi,
I wanted to thank the WG, chairs, and authors, for their work and patience with
me on the alt-tld draft and to let the WG know of the next steps.
Warren and Paul have posted an updated -22 version that addresses my AD review
comments, and hence I will start a 4-week IETF LC on this version
<>
Raises hand.
I object to any weakening of the nxdomain signal, which must continue to be
district from nodata.
p vixie
On Mar 7, 2023 02:16, Peter Thomassen wrote:
On 3/7/23 01:26, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> 2.) As for the "NXNAME" rrtype, I'd like to propose using rrtype 0 (the NULL
It appears that Peter Thomassen said:
>It seems that this perspective is generally shared, as nobody seems to have a
>fundamental problem with changing the semantics
>of NODATA and essentially abandoning NXDOMAIN (for "do" queries).
The reason nobody's arguing is that we resolved that issue se
Rob,
4 weeks for ICANN (which? Organization, Board, Community, all 3?) to provide
feedback? (That feels sort of like the ITU asking "the IETF" for feedback on
an IP-related protocol document in 4 weeks.)
As I’m sure both Harald and Warren can attest, ICANN processes, particularly
those for wh
I agree. I would be amazed if a 6 month feedback window was sufficient
to get this through the formalisms.
-G
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 7:02 AM David Conrad wrote:
>
> Rob,
>
> 4 weeks for ICANN (which? Organization, Board, Community, all 3?) to provide
> feedback? (That feels sort of like the IT
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 15:56, David Conrad wrote:
> 4 weeks for ICANN (which? Organization, Board, Community, all 3?) to provide
> feedback? (That feels sort of like the ITU asking "the IETF" for feedback on
> an IP-related protocol document in 4 weeks.)
Did the IETF (also which?) provide feed
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 11:15:55AM +0100, Peter Thomassen wrote:
> Oops, touché! I stand corrected. Thanks, Mark.
>
> What I meant is rrtype 0. I used the wrong mnemonic.*
IMHO, you're almost definitely correct that NULL (type 10) would be safe to
use for this. Type 0, thought, would not - it's u
> On 8 Mar 2023, at 11:16, Evan Hunt wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 11:15:55AM +0100, Peter Thomassen wrote:
>> Oops, touché! I stand corrected. Thanks, Mark.
>>
>> What I meant is rrtype 0. I used the wrong mnemonic.*
>
> IMHO, you're almost definitely correct that NULL (type 10) would b
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 7:34 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > On 8 Mar 2023, at 11:16, Evan Hunt wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 11:15:55AM +0100, Peter Thomassen wrote:
> >> Oops, touché! I stand corrected. Thanks, Mark.
> >>
> >> What I meant is rrtype 0. I used the wrong mnemonic.*
> >
> >
On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 5:13 PM John Levine wrote:
> It seems like a poor economy. If you really are worried about making the
> bitmap smaller, I suppose there's unused type 54.
Without advocating for that, I wanted to explore this a bit. Does anyone
know
why it is unassigned? Is there any hist
On Mar 7, 2023, at 3:48 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 15:56, David Conrad wrote:
>> 4 weeks for ICANN (which? Organization, Board, Community, all 3?) to provide
>> feedback? (That feels sort of like the ITU asking "the IETF" for feedback on
>> an IP-related protocol document
On Mar 7, 2023, at 20:56, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2023, at 3:48 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 15:56, David Conrad wrote:
>>> 4 weeks for ICANN (which? Organization, Board, Community, all 3?) to
>>> provide feedback? (That feels sort of like the ITU asking "the IETF"
On Mar 7, 2023, at 6:03 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>>> Perhaps it would be useful for someone to decide whether these ships are
>>> intentionally passing in the night or whether more attention to navigation
>>> is required.
>>
>> 1) The leadership of both were well aware of what the other was doing.
14 matches
Mail list logo
