On Jul 15, 2019, at 19:13, Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > Also, the current draft enumerates DLV > which needs to be removed.
Can you explain this? I can understand a forthcoming clarification on the use of DLV that might make it ill-advised to publish such an RRType, but it's not obvious that a dictionary of once-used RRTypes in any particular format is useless (for example in understanding observed RRTypes in order to track the length of a deprecated type's tail). Are archaic English worlds redacted from dictionaries? Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
