On 4/8/14, 7:38 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
On 4.4.2014 00:42, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Apr 3, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Andrew Sullivan<[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 05:39:58PM -0400, Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
>> operated on Internet networks. This will include root zone
>> name servers, TLD name servers, name servers for other DNS
>> zones, iterative DNS resolvers, and recursive DNS resolvers.
>
>Is there a reason to call out these particular functions, or not to
>include something like, "or any other resolver or server functioning
>as part of the global DNS"? I'm just worried, for instance, that
>stubs don't appear there, even though there might be advice I can
>imagine the WG providing.
+1 to at least calling out stub resolvers, but Andrew's non-list
formulation is better.
I agree that including stub-resolvers and other DNS-related software
sounds like a good idea.
There were long threads about DNSSEC handling in stub-resolvers on
dane-list [0] but dnsop seems like a better place to discuss this matter.
Note that this discussion is not over so we can move it to dnsop if
dnsop agrees.
[0] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dane/current/msg06658.html
The wording in Item #1 is essentially intact from the current charter.
So it could take some updating. We can change that sentence to say:
This will include root zone name servers, TLD name servers, or any
other resolver or server functioning as part of the global DNS.
That would address the lack of stub resolvers, but also allow the
flexibility for anything we may fail to specifically mention.
tim
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
