On 20.7.2017 19:09, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 06:59:42PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: >>> But it's certainly another step along the way to DNSbis by accident. >> >> Would it be useful to make it not "by accident"? > > Yes. That was basically the point I was trying to make at the > beginning of today's session, about overall analysis. > > > b) make this draft DNS-SD only, so it can fast forward... >> > > I'm not keen on this. > > >> c) use the changed paradigm to work on DNSbis without the accident part?
Yes please! My main opposition comes from fact that current session signaling draft "accidentaly" defines new protocol which is using the old DNS-RFC1035 as "transport". I would welcome DNSbis effort with clear cut. Here please note that clear cut does not mean that RR format and data, for example, has to be incompatible! It is still possible to share big chunks of specifications (like RR definitions, namespace, etc.) but define a DNSbis protocol which is clearly distinguishable from the old DNS. Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC > I'm starting to wonder whether a bof is needed. Maybe the IAB's > workshop will produce some fruit? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
