IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answers

"Joe Abley" <jabley@hopcount.ca> Thu, 05 November 2015 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jabley@hopcount.ca>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9581B3055 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:30:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham
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 DWAGdjDdU0Z4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:30:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x230.google.com (mail-yk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::230]) (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 1B7141B3050 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:30:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykdr3 with SMTP id r3so139879107ykd.1 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:30:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hopcount.ca; s=google; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type; bh=ScB+eC7E+m2HEfTVU9dwdyqjbWiUFlywucpaMeR9Dak=; b=czI1PIdDGRLT8pcQ+T0jyn9I9QGa0Hcr0eAuOsbdPKrOwvuG+NxYiy+FzuoImCnZo9 mxlcyGOYSDpkr9JXpJDAEc3SXfuyHx6hVE0Fj2fkMtLdcUwWqJWwk38lhFgmtypH5PKb Qf+e/9cUUXn87TpShopW4IWiIIqISRixO0jRQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type; bh=ScB+eC7E+m2HEfTVU9dwdyqjbWiUFlywucpaMeR9Dak=; b=GnRqfZR5OfNjGqWgpcXZxBS3BCGJi9aDJC/BRRA7LddCamJPhqvB/L+hfrTr/Ktm2s wV30Z/h4idRFdMZdLVck8nIfIYBlynbNO9qdhqUtrlS/W1YrMQ6erKCOrSNuv7MeOrU+ 6u7uNr/BCfcGuFuvQ0qAYXT/vZddQx2ob4TamJ3YtJY9FGEYoa2h08t5g+UINwtG64SK HBHw9xpkPGjRTyCG5xMz4bIIQMKTQGHb2Jqx7l4YSQ23KBd2AjBIDCciAvqC8aU9Bl2k nyvjg1Y3E2rME0qODpo80YqWa69/Fv9s+OdI3j4ELaEj1Zgf6MmvhyV9MqEsUMmRLgsI 2fFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmrgx5ohJjHa8w1g/00t3+hVJAEB1mssiArTcnn3gWWCSZtFuDyHBwCqVCNbl/+1g7Q94Ej
X-Received: by 10.31.180.1 with SMTP id d1mr7999009vkf.131.1446741009746; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:30:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.19.128.14] (135-23-68-43.cpe.pppoe.ca. [135.23.68.43]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v84sm5137374vkv.15.2015.11.05.08.30.08 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:30:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:30:07 -0500
Message-ID: <C75D5132-C23E-4A17-B5D1-6F74073C07A8@hopcount.ca>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEH+z2nnK5GF-N9Lf70dLYfEvr=OgR74cWXyMchpmMu5cA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1E5B644E-EA0D-4287-8AB5-1907EE06BE1C@hopcount.ca> <CAF4+nEH+z2nnK5GF-N9Lf70dLYfEvr=OgR74cWXyMchpmMu5cA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.2r5141)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dbAZaJXr7yxoLdj-Gq1dQGdfu5M>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] draft-jabley-dnsop-ordered-answers
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 16:30:13 -0000


On 5 Nov 2015, at 2:20, Donald Eastlake wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
>
>> I couldn't quite interpret the questions and hums in the room; was 
>> the
>> consensus
>>
>> (a) this clarification is not needed; the existing spec is clear 
>> enough, or
>>
>> (b) a clarification might be useful, but the proposed clarification 
>> in the
>> document is wrong, or
>>
>> (c) something else?
>>
>> If it's (b), I could collect more of the kinds of insights that were
>> provided at the mic and update the proposal.
>>
>> If it's (a), I can happily just shut up about and move on with other 
>> things
>> :-)
>
> I believe that in theory the result of the hum was (a) but it may be
> that many people thought (b)...

I shall wait instruction from the chairs as to their opinion.

In case it wasn't clear from Andrew's slides and discussion, the reason 
for asking for adoption was to harvest the combined experience of the 
working group in order to make the proposal make sense, not to push a 
particular solution.


Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email