On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, at 01:30, Paul Hoffman wrote: > It might be better, and faster, for this WG to adopt a one-paragraph > draft that makes the DS registry "RFC required", like the other > DNSSEC-related registries.
I think you mean "Specification Required". RFC required has the same net effect, but the side effect being that you burden the ISE with these requests. As long as the space of codepoints isn't too small (2^16 is fine), then I see no reason not to allow external publications request a value as long as they don't abuse the privilege. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
