Sorry folks, I misread the draft that is in WG adopt request state. The name on it, and the terminology used in it, mislead me to thinking it was specifically for authoritative servers, rather than resolvers. (It is about the latter, but worded and named as if it could apply to authoritative servers. I'm not at all convinced it would be useful or a good alignment of use cases.)
I think it SHOULD be limited in scope to recursives, in which case it would belong in ADD. (But that is a hard IF and ONLY IF, IMNSHO). Brian On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:18 PM Brian Dickson <[email protected]> wrote: > In case anyone does not follow the ADD WG, or does not closely follow > DPRIVE, there is a WG adoption call for an SVCB binding for DNS. > > There are two days left in that adoption call. > > I encourage folks to take a look and give feedback concerning where they > think any such draft belongs (e.g. DNSOP in stead), plus on the draft's > readiness and suitability. > > (My opinion is that there are use cases beyond those in ADD, and the right > place to address the possibly conflicting requirements is DNSOP, and that > the ADD WG should not adopt it.) > > Brian >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
