[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] NTIA letter to ICANN re whois

[Andrew Sullivan]

What exactly is wrong with the DNSSEC bits?  We even have an RRTYPE to make 
this possible.

--
Please excuse my clumbsy thums

On April 18, 2018 15:53:25 theo geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl> wrote:
It's a very bad read.
The stuff about DNSSEC is so bad that it be can used in a Benny Hill 
sketch. But we can have a real discussion about DNSSEC at some point in 
another setting.
Theo

On 18-4-2018 21:35, farzaneh badii wrote:
well no ... but it's not a bad read :)

Farzaneh

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> 
wrote:

Ob.Nag: Is there anything new in that document?

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:15:50PM -0700, John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg 
wrote:
> Please include the following in documents for this wg.
>
> https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/04/17/ntia-icann-whois-apr18.pdf
>

> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg


--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg




_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180418/468feabf/attachment.html>