Re: [DNSOP] Enough to break a camel's back?
Nick Johnson <nick@ethereum.org> Wed, 25 April 2018 13:45 UTC
Return-Path: <nick@ethereum.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A72E126BF7 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 06:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ethereum.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x97h2FtVaqSt for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 06:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54D5C1242F7 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 06:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x229.google.com with SMTP id w195so7299702wmw.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 06:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ethereum.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Bqc28FNcMb+321J/dJf/1GUrZvGCdcCEPsKapToVgdQ=; b=BBuMO7zROS4wE2/fe7pFEUcLmKBKIqncjOZy+WQUQnYkUEpH2rRiRDOQkQIViSZcNv Wnnd9VvRfsRD7Xo2Kg2EgBt+e/H0i5p8zBrCSViwIpLkbsqvlDxF/mV0cRwvuv3C2d2y v8JCk+zQSMOz1htP/iahBitWQXfjVWTojvp00=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Bqc28FNcMb+321J/dJf/1GUrZvGCdcCEPsKapToVgdQ=; b=Nh6zqwv7AA9z1UgPo/4EV04PpT8VWYLpUJ64zn6rf3Bi9pF05J+gCoIlNx4fiDn6VJ r7g37Q5IYD8IHpPcxzHVaSto/RBWd4hl190WXFSiaQxCsfqYqhs87gbW28cSX1EqnWNF rtSu4Dut4Ztn5iuxo2I+23ADQW2kpiEfyM4GrQFoo6ye8yckk8qIPR+LHjyhKzRz1IwG q7//UaYDE3wC4drCOqFjaXDvVVJyhS4Z9WYz2quj8GDZZ3LZjUYk76KgxrlgtbX5EadA MC5Pz6NxaYxiLy0DidxAgGz2lgoaco9UG0ZCKR1gJa8d3CS32TQmZ1s/nILir7Dz4hL1 aR/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBZfD0lArQbtV+ZhUnglHJW+ac5Lr7nXsaZ/IiXJCgxpXCndnBL Jmxn+VyE+h7CKojkY6XWbu3v51fGu+A9fbj/3KeBZA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZrHRoX0Okjw0DOhNirYWU7PBqbXoErW+c7ncFmTTG/9Xii8F/9dVRA6Goam8K+ZTokJwcLFm5pgdcLZG86OCDY=
X-Received: by 10.80.149.29 with SMTP id u29mr2696543eda.268.1524663945883; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 06:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFz7pMsHGv+fY9KEw2cxR6E9-y7z-iwyKxv6DjBf_UWnzZwG5A@mail.gmail.com> <8A0F2EAC-001B-4798-97C5-0FBDAA0E80D7@nohats.ca> <CAFz7pMuEuE1gQQojxjKDRHPZYQBU9m94JEiVmOtuZJjz8AkJ7g@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804250938180.1911@bofh.nohats.ca>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804250938180.1911@bofh.nohats.ca>
From: Nick Johnson <nick@ethereum.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:45:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFz7pMvYQbszAWAK-RsiLOQ--b0rXw6ajdOktQkLz0t5wG94VA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: dnsop@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c19803ae5a3c1056aac7cf7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/Wy3zW9rEp26Ik1i--BbWI3nJiAk>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Enough to break a camel's back?
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:45:49 -0000
Just discovered it lacks RFCs 4035 and 5702 as well. So it's definitely on the conservative side. On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 2:38 PM Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Nick Johnson wrote: > > > No, I left out RFCs only referenced by "obsoletes" metadata. > > Okay, then the photo is accurate :) > > Paul >
- [DNSOP] Enough to break a camel's back? Nick Johnson
- Re: [DNSOP] Enough to break a camel's back? Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Enough to break a camel's back? Nick Johnson
- Re: [DNSOP] Enough to break a camel's back? Paul Wouters
- Re: [DNSOP] Enough to break a camel's back? Nick Johnson
- Re: [DNSOP] Enough to break a camel's back? Paul Vixie