On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Jim Reid wrote: > On 14 Feb 2012, at 17:20, David Conrad wrote: > >>> That said, it's good to update and revise those guidelines from time to >>> time. IMO the value of this document is to describe the general principles >>> and suggest to others how an "important" DNS server should be operated. For >>> instance, it can (and has) been used in RFPs for DNS service for TLDs. >> >> I agree, however I'd think a better approach would be to write a BCP for >> "important" DNS servers, not a document that sets up false expectations or >> assumptions. > > +1 > > Though until that comes along RFC2870(bis) is probably the best hammer-shaped > object for that nail-shaped problem.
A few people have asked, but we haven't gotten any real answer, on what the nail-shaped problem is. --Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
