I support adoption. I wondered a little about "it is absolutely essential for these transfers to be protected from unexpected modifications on the route. So, catalog zone transfers SHOULD be authenticated using TSIG [RFC2845]."
The use of a categorical *absolutely* and SHOULD is jarring. If this is really categorical, the normative enforcement needs to be stronger maybe? I also wondered why the TTL of the RR is not held to be meaningful. It felt like there is an opportunity to use this field but thats quibble, the document as-is defines it as 0 and thats ok, if perhaps missing an opportunity to use a field close to the zone being catalogued for some purpose. On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:42 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > All, > > As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run > regular call for adoptions over next few months. > We are looking for *explicit* support for adoption. > > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-toorop-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-toorop-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones/ > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption > by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > > Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc. > > This call for adoption ends: 25 May 2020 > > Thanks, > tim wicinski > DNSOP co-chair > > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
