some of the entires skewed the table and
made it difficult to read).
Scott
===
Scott Rose
NIST
scott.r...@nist.gov
+1 301-975-8439
Google Voice: +1 571-249-3671
http://www.dnsops.gov/
===
On Jul 14, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Samuel Weiler
18 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> This version resolves all of my comments, with the exception that while the
> text now says the draft updates DNAME, the header still says it obsoletes RFC
> 2672. Is that the intent?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
>
> On Jun 24
; Thanks for the response! Comments below, eliding the bits I think need no
> further comment.
>
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:11 PM, Scott Rose wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting it?
>
> That would resolve my concern, if it fits w
Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting it?
As for the nits:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
-- IDNits has some comments, please check.
> -- Abstract: "This is a revision of the original specification in RFC
Perhaps the document should only update RFC 2672 instead of obsoleting it?
As for the nits:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
-- IDNits has some comments, please check.
> -- Abstract: "This is a revision of the original specification in RFC
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 16:33 -0400 6/1/11, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> I believe that nothing anywhere in the document suggests that one
>> ought to guage conformance of software against the registry, and if
>> you think it says that somewhere, I'd like a pointer
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 8:22 -0700 5/26/11, The IESG wrote:
>
>> The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
>> consider the following document:
>> - 'Applicability Statement: DNS Security (DNSSEC) DNSKEY Algorithm IANA
>> Registry'
>
