Gervase, On Jun 11, 2008, at 4:26 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: > It's not true that we won't work on any other solution. This is what > we > have now, and there have been no alternative proposals which (to my > mind) look like producing anything workable in the short term.
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'workable'. > Half this list seems to think that getting all the TLDs to agree on or > do anything is an enterprise doomed to failure, and the other half > seem > to think that we should be waiting for all the TLD operators to > agree to > set up their own repositories of the data. There is a contradiction > there. While I might agree that it is unlikely you'll get all the TLDs to agree on or do anything (they are a wildly varying bunch in pretty much every axis) I don't remember anyone suggesting you wait on the TLD operators to set up their own repositories. What I do remember folks saying is that hardcoding a list in other contexts has caused lots of trouble in the past and that it is probably a mistake for you to do it in your product. Some folks have even suggested alternatives (although I gather you do not consider them 'workable'). If I understand correctly, if there is no data (regardless of the solution), you get no change in behavior. As such, doing a probe for policy data when it is needed would seem to be workable. If there is no data available (for whatever reason), you get no change in behavior. If there is data, you get the most up to date available. Whether or not you start with a static list that is then over-ridden by the response from the probe is an implementation choice that can be argued. FWIW. Regards, -drc _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
