On 7 Oct 2014, at 00:04, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear DNSOP WG,
After discussions about the landing spot of this document, DNSOP vs the newer
DNS Privacy WG, it was realized the updated DNSOP charter specifically had
work like this in mind.
This starts a Call for
On 10 Dec 2014, at 11:41, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
On 7 Oct 2014, at 00:04, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear DNSOP WG,
After discussions about the landing spot of this document, DNSOP vs the
newer DNS Privacy WG, it was realized the updated DNSOP charter
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear DNSOP WG,
After discussions about the landing spot of this document, DNSOP vs the
newer DNS Privacy WG, it was realized the updated DNSOP charter
specifically had work like this in mind.
This starts a Call for
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 12:04:22AM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
I do not support accepting the draft (or the proposal it carries) as a work
item.
Other than
Just to expand on my comments after some arguments made against.
The reason I think the WG should adopt the work item is that the original
design of DNS is now defective in the light of contemporary privacy
concerns. There is no reason that the operators of registries should have
sight of any
TL;DR tidbit: IF the combined authority+resolver case (when switching
ISP hosting companies) is not handled by the QNAME minimization draft,
IMHO it should consider adding it. It is a real-world problem edge-case
seen frequently.
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 12:04:22AM -0400, Tim Wicinski wrote:
On Oct 20, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Peter Koch p...@denic.de wrote:
A whole system has
been successfully built around it with complex interdependencies.
Please say more. What are those dependencies are from a protocol point of view?
'parent centric' and 'child centric' resolvers and query
this is a +1. see below.
Phillip Hallam-Baker mailto:ph...@hallambaker.com
Monday, October 20, 2014 12:04 PM
Just to expand on my comments after some arguments made against.
The reason I think the WG should adopt the work item is that the
original design of DNS is now defective in the light
In message cah1iciourwmohyqw3dq0y3tcopwapd7k8gab-ecx-8pj1ho...@mail.gmail.com
, Brian Dickson writes:
TL;DR tidbit: IF the combined authority+resolver case (when switching
ISP hosting companies) is not handled by the QNAME minimization draft,
IMHO it should consider adding it. It is a
+1 for adoption (and at the occasion contribute, review, implement, etc).
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
On Friday, October 10, 2014, Francis Dupont francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
wrote:
+1 for adoption (and at the occasion contribute, review, implement, etc).
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr javascript:;
aol
Me too!
/aol
___
DNSOP mailing list
I support the draft. I will review/contribute.
BR,
Daniel
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Olafur Gudmundsson o...@ogud.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
by DNSOP, and
no hat
On Oct 6, 2014, at 9:04 PM, Tim Wicinski tjw.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by
DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
Yes, it is ready for adoption by DNSOP.
Please also indicate if you are willing
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Tim Wicinski wrote:
This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation.
The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation/
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for
On Oct 7, 2014, at 12:04 AM, Tim Wicinski
tjw.i...@gmail.commailto:tjw.i...@gmail.com
wrote:
Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption by
DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
I support adoption of this draft.
Please also indicate if you
Dear DNSOP WG,
After discussions about the landing spot of this document, DNSOP vs the
newer DNS Privacy WG, it was realized the updated DNSOP charter
specifically had work like this in mind.
This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation.
The draft is available
Tim Wicinski mailto:tjw.i...@gmail.com
Monday, October 06, 2014 9:04 PM
...
This starts a Call for Adoption for
draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation.
The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation/
Please review this draft to
On Oct 6, 2014, at 9:40 PM, Paul Vixie p...@redbarn.org wrote:
This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-bortzmeyer-dns-qname-minimisation.
i favour adoption. i will review, and contribute.
+1
Regards,
-drc
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
18 matches
Mail list logo
