Hello, On 8/23/13 2:03 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > >
> > on the other hand i would not be glad to see NTA as an IETF RFC, FYI, > BCP, or other standards-like artifact. A long time ago a group of people said the same about NAT and now, a few years on many of them regret it, while us who were not present there are still suffering the consequences. IMO, documenting it doesn't imply endorsement. In fact, the document gives us the opportunity to actually write down why such a practice may not in fact be a good idea, and gives guidance to do it in a predictable way for *someone who really, really wants to do it anyways*. An Informational RFC would fit this purpose nicely. Cheers! ~Carlos _______________________________________________ dns-operations mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations dns-jobs mailing list https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs
