Given the long list of things in this document that ISC has thought about and
actively decided not to do, is it a good idea that we call it a "best current
practice"?
--Paul Hoffman
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/li
> On 20 Jan 2023, at 15:20, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> Given the long list of things in this document that ISC has thought about and
> actively decided not to do, is it a good idea that we call it a "best current
> practice"?
Maybe. Though a BCP should go beyond documenting what BIND9 does.
In
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Given the long list of things in this document that ISC has thought about and actively
decided not to do, is it a good idea that we call it a "best current practice"?
It seems there should be more discussion which hopefully would lead to
a converging B
On Fri Jan 20, 2023 at 6:53 PM UTC, Paul Wouters wrote:
> It seems there should be more discussion which hopefully would lead to
> a converging BCP before moving forward. Hearing from other main
> implementations would be extremely helpful here.
i have always been a fan of ISC's work, but i agree
I am indifferent about what label we stick on this, but perhaps the document
should have a section on implementations?
However, I do feel that the Security Considerations is missing on the risks of
dropping packets, ICMP filtering and dangers of PMTUD.
Also it feels weird to me that the IP_PMTU
The chairs thank all for this feedback, even at this stage. But it's
better to catch these issues now, than
later on in the process.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 3:52 PM Ondřej Surý wrote:
> I am indifferent about what label we stick on this, but perhaps the
> document should have a section on impl
Hi all,
Thank you to the authors, chairs and WG for wanting to make the document as
good as it can be, even if that does require some more work.
The chairs have requested that I return it to the WG to get an
implementation section added, and so I'll do so[0].
Thanks again,
W
[0]: I'll keep the
Thanks Warren!
As we discussed, it appears I felt all comments had been addressed, but
missed some nuances.
In the next few days I'll reach out to these folks to help me suggest some
text on
adding an Implementations Section, but also making sure we've addressed all
comments.
My guess is we'll do
Tim,I think I’ve just did that in the previous email. I feel that gathering information about more implementations first would be better, so the section on Implementation could be uniform for all gathered input.Ondrej--Ondřej Surý — ISC (He/Him)My working hours and your working hours may be differe
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 12:07 PM Ondřej Surý wrote:
> Tim,
>
> I think I’ve just did that in the previous email. I feel that gathering
> information about more implementations first would be better, so the
> section on Implementation could be uniform for all gathered input.
>
> Ondrej
>
I agree,
Hello authors, chairs and WG,
I was wondering when we'd see an updated version of this document?
The IETF 116 "Internet-Draft submission cut-off" is 2023-03-13 (7 days from
now) - https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/important-dates/
I think that the requested changes were not particularly ma
11 matches
Mail list logo
