This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/dns-wg@ripe.net/
do we need a meeting of the DNS TF ?
- Previous message (by thread): do we need a meeting of the DNS TF ?
- Next message (by thread): do we need a meeting of the DNS TF ?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andreas.Knocke at nic.de
Andreas.Knocke at nic.de
Mon Jan 16 19:17:50 CET 1995
> Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont at inria.fr> writes > * I can't see important problems which could make > * a meeting of the DNS TF necessary but perhaps > * I've forgotten something ? > * > * Thanks > * Francis.Dupont at inria.fr > > Question is whether we want to overhaul the domain object, or just > approve the small changes discussed last week. If we just want the > small changes, I am sure we can do it in the db-wg (Wilfried?). If we > want other bigger changes, we'd probably need a dns-wg meeting. We probably should still do it - if possible - within the db-wg. It's (just :-) another object and I think we should decide what's it use and what's the future of each of its attributes. I think it more relates to documented procedures and common usage of the RIPE DB than to DNS. It also has relevance with two action items in the db-wg (documentation, another new domain-object for in-addr delegations). But maybe I'm lacking the history of the dns-wg and db-wg than please excuse my ignorance. > -Marten Andreas (Knocke, DE-NIC)
- Previous message (by thread): do we need a meeting of the DNS TF ?
- Next message (by thread): do we need a meeting of the DNS TF ?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]