Hi Matt! (Replying on dnsop but noting that dbound was the suggested venue)
On Mar 29, 2019, at 10:19, Matthew Pounsett <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the weak semantic definition of this record makes it either not > useful, or actively dangerous, depending on how the consumer of a record > chooses to interpret it. I think it would be helpful to describe the risks that you see in more detail, e.g. being clear about the intent from the publishing and consuming side and how it could be subverted. I'm not sure I see a problem. I'm not saying there isn't one. More generally the authors don't actually need adoption or even tolerance by this group to get an RRType code point assignment. I don't think you are suggesting a veto, but I always find it helpful to be clear that documentation in the RFC series for new RRTypes is a welcome courtesy and not a requirement :-) Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
