"obsolescing" makes me gag hard enough to call it a problem, not a nit. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
On Mar 27, 2012, at 5:12 PM, Samuel Weiler wrote: > As I said at the microphone in Paris, I would strongly prefer to see typecode templates posted publicly in all cases. I see no need to shorten the review period beyond the current three weeks. > > Furthermore, as I pointed out on this list on 7 October, IANA seems to not be maintaining the archive of templates as requested in both RFC5395 and RFC6195. If we're are going to keep using this template system to allocate typecodes, we need that archive. Absent a commitment from IANA to maintain that archive, preferably backed up with evidence that they have populated that archive with the old templates, I would prefer to see us back out the RFC5395 changes to the typecode allocation process and revert to the RFC2929 rules. This is an issue for the IAB, who is in charge of the IETF's relationship with IANA. If IANA is not meeting a requirement of an RFC, they should be told to do so a bit more forcefully. We should not have to revert to a less descriptive registry. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
On Mar 26, 2012, at 3:29 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote: > I support the idea of moving ECDSA to "Recommended". +1 --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
Greetings again. A reviewer of the latest TLSA protocol document in the DANE WG has asked us to add a normative reference to the DNS RFCs because implementers would need to understand some of the DNS before using TLSA. That seems fair. However, saying "go read these two antique RFCs that have been updated over a dozen times" doesn't seem all that useful. Is there a better RFC that can be pointed to for "you need to understand some DNS basics"? --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
"obsolescing" makes me gag hard enough to call it a problem, not a nit.
_______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 05:26:04AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Greetings again. A reviewer of the latest TLSA protocol document in the DANE WG has asked us to add a normative reference to the DNS RFCs because implementers would need to understand some of the DNS before using TLSA. That seems fair. However, saying "go read these two antique RFCs that have been updated over a dozen times" doesn't seem all that useful. Is there a better RFC that can be pointed to for "you need to understand some DNS basics"? > No, and there is no agreement on what list you ought to use either. STD13 is your best bet. The last time the WG "came back from sleep", we were supposed to take on the protocol-profile work. But we just didn't do the work. Best, A -- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs <at> anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
On 2 April 2012 02:11, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman <at> vpnc.org> wrote:"obsolescing" makes me gag hard enough to call it a problem, not a nit.
Ugly; but apparently not obsolete, according to my English (EN-GB) dictionary!
obsolesce verb (obsolesced, obsolescing)
intr to become obsolete; to be going out of use. 19c.
Chambers 21st Century Dictionary
_______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
--On 2 April 2012 14:37:42 +0100 Dick Franks <rwfranks <at> acm.org> wrote:
>> "obsolescing" makes me gag hard enough to call it a problem, not a nit.
>
>
> Ugly; but apparently not obsolete, according to my English (EN-GB)
> dictionary!
>
> obsolesce verb (obsolesced, obsolescing)
> intr to become obsolete; to be going out of use. 19c.
>
> Chambers 21st Century Dictionary
It is an intransitive verb (see 'intr') above. You cannot obsolesce
something. You can, however, make something obselete.
Adding a newly specified algorithm to the registry with a
- implementation status other than OPTIONAL SHALL entail obsolescing
- this document and replacing the table in Section 2.2 (with the new
+ implementation status other than OPTIONAL SHALL entail making
+ this document obsolete and replacing the table in Section 2.2 (with the
new algorithm entry). Altering the status column value of any existing
- algorithm in the registry SHALL entail obsolescing this document and
- replacing the table in Section 2.2 above.
+ algorithm in the registry SHALL entail making this document obsolete and
+ replacing the table in Section 2.2 above.
Apparently you can "obsolete" something (as used under 'Status of this
memo'), so 'obsoleting' would be an alternative, but is almost as horrible
IMHO.
--
--
Alex Bligh
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
On Apr 2, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 05:26:04AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> Greetings again. A reviewer of the latest TLSA protocol document in the DANE WG has asked us to add a normative reference to the DNS RFCs because implementers would need to understand some of the DNS before using TLSA. That seems fair. However, saying "go read these two antique RFCs that have been updated over a dozen times" doesn't seem all that useful. Is there a better RFC that can be pointed to for "you need to understand some DNS basics"? >> > > No, and there is no agreement on what list you ought to use either. > STD13 is your best bet. Works for me. > The last time the WG "came back from sleep", > we were supposed to take on the protocol-profile work. But we just > didn't do the work. Noted. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman <at> vpnc.org> wrote: > On Mar 26, 2012, at 3:29 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > > I support the idea of moving ECDSA to "Recommended". > > +1 Sounds good to me, but are there any implementations yet? Tony. -- -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot <at> dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Portland, Plymouth: North 3 or 4, backing northwest 5 or 6 later. Slight or moderate. Showers later. Moderate or good. _______________________________________________ dnsext mailing list dnsext <at> ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
RSS Feed55 | |
|---|---|
197 | |
42 | |
29 | |
10 | |
46 | |
9 | |
90 | |
31 | |
30 | |
65 | |
62 | |
22 | |
65 | |
137 | |
97 | |
120 | |
69 | |
41 | |
192 | |
72 | |
131 | |
51 | |
122 | |
85 | |
58 | |
331 | |
324 | |
210 | |
167 | |
74 | |
138 | |
206 | |
417 | |
171 | |
297 | |
275 | |
420 | |
288 | |
341 | |
199 | |
231 | |
116 | |
177 | |
277 | |
528 | |
343 | |
518 | |
344 | |
246 | |
143 | |
139 | |
135 | |
120 | |
158 | |
239 | |
272 | |
441 | |
297 | |
189 | |
32 | |
45 | |
203 | |
224 | |
208 | |
49 | |
119 | |
77 | |
44 | |
64 | |
49 | |
66 | |
33 | |
28 | |
111 | |
49 | |
96 | |
133 | |
86 | |
139 | |
54 | |
196 | |
144 | |
179 | |
99 | |
126 | |
254 | |
161 | |
76 | |
134 | |
268 | |
207 | |
135 | |
87 | |
71 | |
189 | |
67 | |
92 | |
271 | |
134 | |
281 | |
74 | |
134 | |
164 | |
239 | |
225 | |
142 | |
460 | |
391 | |
16 | |
107 | |
129 | |
121 | |
142 | |
145 | |
199 | |
209 | |
141 | |
109 | |
231 | |
195 | |
205 | |
255 | |
426 | |
70 | |
189 | |
267 | |
91 | |
211 | |
254 | |
308 | |
254 | |
41 | |
181 |
