IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dnsext] perhaps we should reintroduce "resimprove"

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 09 February 2012 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dnsext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-namedroppers-archive-gleetwall6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA79021F8664; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:54:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1328813658; bh=mBKkVG6CfJ6y0Unrg+bWagMK9xKBkx6JVGWHUg/Wa5k=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To: Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help: List-Subscribe:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Sender; b=snZF6gIUAxwJPdBAOcvO0OiGoIzZXH0nk6aERtBKicm1OVbG1xYrsZQClCJ3JFMxw qSq7gxn52DgwQfm5xe69HwSSgHO5l9UnnAfgQOrOaMiP7oXoqTU3qJtAw0xpB+vXoB R/jYjXVyIb5sHYyMQ3afH6XvQd4IbfY7id3FzgZ0=
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 69CFF21F8664 for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:54:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.606
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.606 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, 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 8hw2glLq-Uzh for <dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:54:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D13F121F8653 for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:54:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (69-196-144-227.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.227]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 031A11ECB41D for <dnsext@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:54:15 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:54:14 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: dnsext@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20120209185413.GM15698@mail.yitter.info>
References: <4F33E1A6.4030902@isc.org> <20120209172318.GI15698@mail.yitter.info> <20120209180201.GF86405@registro.br>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120209180201.GF86405@registro.br>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] perhaps we should reintroduce "resimprove"
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dnsext-bounces@ietf.org

On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 04:02:01PM -0200, Frederico A C Neves wrote:
> 
> Don't You think we should treat this orthogonally to the dnsext
> shutdown ?

Yes; that's why the "what do you mean 'we'"?  I was just trying to be
clear that the five reviewers, &c., is not a WG work item requirement
in this case, because DNSEXT isn't going to add this work to the WG
list.  I enthusiastically encourage people to use this mailing list to
co-ordinate additional work.

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
dnsext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email