Hiya,

On 18/08/2022 20:26, Paul Vixie wrote:
i don't think the .ALT draft is going to move forward without such change, so the distinction will be between .ALT as proposed and .ALT as evolved, not between .ALT and some other SUDN.

I think I agree. But to check: are we saying that the .alt
I-D ought be changed (possibly outside dnsop) so that there's
an IANA registry for one level of name beneath .alt with "RFC
required" as the requirement for adding an entry? (So those
RFCs could come from the IETF, IRTF, ISE etc. at present.)

Cheers,
S.

Attachment: OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to