Petr Špaček <petr.spa...@nic.cz> writes: > I support adoption under condition that the envisioned "DNSSEC > Transparency" mechanism is documented and somewhat tested before > "powerbind" draft progresses into form of RFC.
So that statement makes the point that there is no point in the document except for DNSSEC Transparency. I'm not sure that's true (and I'm going to work on a better intro that hopefully may clarify things). But implementation is pretty much a requirement in dnsop for anything new; so implementation of the bit would certainly be needed (by both client and sender). But, IMHO, it shouldn't be tied to a larger topic's (DNSSEC Transparency) implementation. -- Wes Hardaker USC/ISI _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
