Subject: [v6ops] DNS Whitelisting

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 05:12:56 -0600

Let me invite review and comment on draft-livingood-dns-whitelisting-implications. Pursuant to the survey outcome, I have asked Jason to repost as a working group document. That said, I personally feel that it is close to being ready to pass along. 

What further comments do folks have? Are there issues that have not been brought up, or which need further attention?

Another question, apart from any edits that folks feel are needed, would be "at what status". Would we want to call this "informational" or "best current practice"? My inclination would be to call it a white paper, which is to say "informative".

---

From: "Livingood, Jason" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:51:48 +0000

I just posted this a short time ago as
draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-00. Please note that
the content of the draft is exactly the same as what I had at IETF 79.

You will note in the open issues tracker at the end of the document that I
have several pieces of feedback in my queue to react to for a -01 version,
including comments made at IETF 79. I have set aside time in my calendar
over the next couple of weeks to react to those comments and update the
draft. Feedback to those folks will include a copy to this list and I may
have questions for the list in a few areas.

Additional feedback is always welcome and I'll add it to the queue for -01.

Thanks!
Jason

On 12/3/10 6:12 AM, "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Let me invite review and comment on
>draft-livingood-dns-whitelisting-implications. Pursuant to the survey
>outcome, I have asked Jason to repost as a working group document. That
>said, I personally feel that it is close to being ready to pass along.
>
>What further comments do folks have? Are there issues that have not been
>brought up, or which need further attention?
>
>Another question, apart from any edits that folks feel are needed, would
>be "at what status". Would we want to call this "informational" or "best
>current practice"? My inclination would be to call it a white paper,
>which is to say "informative".
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:57:39 -0600

Cool. Thanks.