Re: [apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsawg document:draft-hoffman-server-has-tls-03.txt
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Mon, 17 January 2011 15:22 UTC
Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DCDF3A6F42 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 07:22:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bCWoTYDlH1Hm for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 07:22:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 938653A6F3E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 07:22:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 908571ECB408 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:25:22 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:25:20 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110117152520.GN3923@shinkuro.com>
References: <495232101.07985@cnnic.cn> <495246785.22018@cnnic.cn> <4D345EA0.3000506@vpnc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D345EA0.3000506@vpnc.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsawg document:draft-hoffman-server-has-tls-03.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 15:22:49 -0000
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 07:22:08AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: > Of course, getting input from the wide community is important. Note that > for Resource Records, however, the DNSEXT WG is not the decider: the > expert reviewer for the registry is. This is why the APPSAWG is a more > appropriate place to discuss the semantics and desirability of the > protocol. Speaking as one of the co-chairs of DNSEXT, but without having discussed this with my co-chair, I agree with Paul. The RRTYPE itself is way less interesting than the overall protocol. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@shinkuro.com Shinkuro, Inc.
- Re: [apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsaw… Jiankang YAO
- Re: [apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsaw… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsaw… Andrew Sullivan