On Jul 1, 2013, at 1:32 PM, Joe Abley <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > We have two drafts on the table relating to extensions to AS112 service, in > particular to accommodate delegation or redirection of new zones to the > infrastructure: > > draft-wkumari-dnsop-omniscient-as112 > draft-jabley-dnsop-as112-dname > > I suspect that it makes no sense to proceed with both approaches (although > perhaps someone else here thinks differently). > > I have talked to Warren, and the sensible approach seems to be to discuss > both approaches here, and choose one of them. At that point we can merge > useful text, authors, etc and proceed with the polish on the selected option. > > Could we ask the chairs to help facilitate this discussion?
In the mean time -- assuming that we test DNAME and find out that: A: it is well supported B: works well enough. C: doesn't have any bad side effects does anyone have any compelling reasons why we wouldn't simply go the DNAME route? W > > Thanks, > > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > -- "When it comes to glittering objects, wizards have all the taste and self-control of a deranged magpie." -- Terry Pratchett _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
