[dnsext] 3007 vs 4033, 4034 and 4035
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 06 December 2011 22:19 UTC
Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4627F21F8548 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:19:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TguHXZYT7Nnx for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:19:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ams1.isc.org (mx.ams1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:500:60::65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA80B21F8545 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 14:19:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bikeshed.isc.org (bikeshed.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:d::19]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bikeshed.isc.org", Issuer "ISC CA" (verified OK)) by mx.ams1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DA5A5F98AF for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 22:19:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:4c56:5549:eccd:a9ae]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bikeshed.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 26D6E216C6D for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 22:19:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06FDA1925ECD for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:19:11 +1100 (EST)
To: dnsext@ietf.org
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:19:10 +1100
Message-Id: <20111206221911.06FDA1925ECD@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Subject: [dnsext] 3007 vs 4033, 4034 and 4035
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:19:29 -0000
4033, 4034 and 4035 all list 3007 as being updated by them. I see no evidence that any of 4033, 4034 and 4035 actually update 3007. I believe a erratra should be filed. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
- Re: [dnsext] 3007 vs 4033, 4034 and 4035 SM
- [dnsext] 3007 vs 4033, 4034 and 4035 Mark Andrews
- Re: [dnsext] 3007 vs 4033, 4034 and 4035 Edward Lewis
- Re: [dnsext] 3007 vs 4033, 4034 and 4035 Lawrence Conroy
- [dnsext] The list name (was: 3007 vs 4033, 4034 a… Andrew Sullivan