o do not recall
receiving any specific request for review of its drafts.
(I accidently noticed recently, that one of my RFCs - i.e. RFC 6118 - got
yet another reference, which came as a surprise to me...)
cheers,
Bernie
--
http://ucom.ch/
Modern Telephony Solutions and Tech Consulting for Int
._A.example.com","URI").
However, RFC 8552 only lists the Enumservices labels for Types, but not
for Subtypes:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/enum-services/enum-services.xhtml
Shouldn't the labels for Subtypes also go to this (initial) URI Registry?
cheers,
Bernie (Des
of relationships may
be defined by the RFC Editor and may appear in future RFCs.
If you’ve already discussed this or believe the “Updates” to be in line with
DNSOP / Ops Area practices, feel free to ignore this comment.
* Bernie
From: Bernie Volz
Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at
you should have used TLS.
Perhaps also saying that if DNS over TLS isn’t used (just plan TCP), then it
may be possible for a man-in-the-middle to inject messages (such as with a
large Retry Delay TLV)?
Again, nothing that likely MUST be fixed.
* Bernie
bring up any possible issues now.
Thanks in advance!
cheers,
Bernie, e2md BoF co-chair
--
http://ucom.ch/
Tech Consulting for Internet Standardization
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
forward to a fruitful discussion!
cheers,
Bernie
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:00:46
From: Bernie Hoeneisen
To: E.164 To MetaData BOF discussion list
Subject: [e2md] charter discussion kick-off
Hi,
After we have collected the use cases, the e2md work continues
D has been proposed for the upcoming IETF in Anaheim:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/#RAI
Note: E2MD has been formerly known as E2M (a naming conflict with a
legacy SIP WG item required a change of the acronym for this BOF)
cheers,
Bernie
___
