On 7/16/19 1:49 AM, Joe Abley wrote: > 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?
This may be my fault: I had put text in draft-mekking-dnsop-obsolete-dlv that the DLV reference in this draft should be removed. But you are right, the reference to DLV can stay in draft-lhotka-dnsop-iana-class-type-yang, just like there is a reference to A6. The status of A6 in this draft is set to obsolete, as it should be. But what should the status of DLV be in this document? This question I guess proves Paul's argument that putting snapshots of IANA registries in an I-D is a bad idea. Best regards, Matthijs > > > Joe > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
