On May 7, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This sounds to me like a) support for working on edns-client-subnet (and > possibly things like it in the future), with b) a resulting RFC as > "Informational". > > I've found this discussion very helpful in solidifying the thoughts Tim > already wrote about, particularly with regards to carrying out our new > charter. Thank you all. > > > best, > Suzanne I support publication of this “stupid DNS trick” as an RFC .. of some sort, particularly given the breath of deployment. That said, I’ve seen some of the warts and am sympathetic to Paul’s aging architectural concerns and I think some review from the abundance of DNS experts here will likely serve it well :-) As for the publication track here, or any other [E]DNS extensions similar application, whether deemed unorthodox or unfashionable, I don’t think there should be blanket discretion and edict by the chairs, we have processes that say what can be published on Experimental, Informational, or Standards Track, IIRC… Then again, perhaps DNSOP is not the place to document deployed and operational DNS stuff and we should revive DNSEXT to discussed operationally deployed DNS stuff, particularly given the charter discussions as of late. Or, um.. -danny
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
