Hi Sean,
I was just wondering how the progress of
draft-ietf-uta-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog is seen. We are in the next step of
the IEC specification and it would be good to have a RFC, which can be
normatively referenced. Anything I can provide support?
Best regards
Steffen
> -Original
* “An "internationalized domain name", i.e., a DNS domain name that
includes at least one label containing appropriately encoded Unicode code
points outside the traditional US-ASCII range. In particular, it contains at
least one U-label or A-label, but otherwise may contain any mixture of
Hi,
Viktr Duhovni wrote:
[...pretty much the same stuff...]
"This document does not attempt to resolve the differences between the
conflicting specifications."
I don't think we need to say this--it's obvious.
"DNS names that conform to IDNA2008 are likely to face fewer
interoperability barriers,
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:48:42AM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
> Current:
> ---
> An "internationalized domain name", i.e., a DNS domain name that includes
> at least one label containing appropriately encoded Unicode code points
> outside the traditional US-ASCII range and conforming to the processin
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:49 AM Rob Sayre wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> That is a reasonable thing to ask for, and I will supply edits below. They
> might sound like me rather than the authors, so I wouldn't mind if they write
> something substantially similar in their own voice.
>
> I also understand the
Hi,
That is a reasonable thing to ask for, and I will supply edits below. They
might sound like me rather than the authors, so I wouldn't mind if they
write something substantially similar in their own voice.
I also understand the point of view that says "Really all this draft says
is 'compare A
> Before issuing a consensus call, the first question is to Rob:
can you propose concrete text changes that you want to see in the draft?
I have not seen anyone other than Rob say that there is a problem. I might have
missed someone's posts, as I've been involved in other work at times. I have
Hello,
UTA Chairs have discussed and we currently don't feel there is a need to
meet for IETF 116.
If you feel differently, we welcome your feedback, and we can request a
slot.
The deadline for requesting a WG session is February 10th.
Regards,
OS
--
*ORIE STEELE*
Chief Technical Officer
www
Hi,
thanks to all for very interesting discussion (and thanks
to John and Patrik for the explanation of the history of the problem).
Before issuing a consensus call, the first question is to Rob:
can you propose concrete text changes that you want to see in the draft?
Regards,
Valery (for the
> Il 30/01/2023 08:31 CET John C Klensin ha scritto:
>
> However, I think Rich is basically correct and that this
> discussion is not going to get us or the WG anywhere. FWIW,
> when Patrik, Vint, or I complain about emoji in identifiers, we
> are actually not very concerned about a single h
10 matches
Mail list logo
