On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 09:11:26AM -0400, Edward Lewis wrote: > The DNSOP group has considered but never adopted a draft (nor any > documented promoted to RFC) that defined what split DNS is. Without a
If you were referring to draft-krishnaswamy-dnsop-dnssec-split-view there, I'm not sure I agree. My complaint at the time was that the document was trying to do two things at once, and neither was really fully there. In particular, I thought (and still think) that a fairly extensive discussion of split-view was needed, and that the different approaches and so on needed to be enumerated in one document. Then a second document detailing when and how to do split-view with DNSSEC (with that draft as the basis) would be good. I was ready to work on this, and in fact I did some work on it, but there didn't seem to be much other enthusiasm. I am still ready and willing to take this on. I know that it's fashionable to go "lalalala" every time split-brain^H^H^H^H^Hview comes up, but it's a widely-used feature and I think we're remiss if we don't document it. If you and Suresh want to continue work on this, so do I. > The group has to define split DNS. Completely agree. A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
