Hi Peter and Vladimir, The disconnect between the requirements and the recommendations effectively reflects the misconception we had in the beginning. We have always wanted to provide guidelines to DRO and started listing some requirements for the software. However, the operators generally are not implementing the software so that was the wrong track. We hopefully believe we are addressing the missing bits on providing recommendations for the DRO with the current draft. But this is name of the document is a bit misleading.
Yours, Daniel On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 9:07 AM Peter Thomassen <pe...@desec.io> wrote: > > On 12/15/22 15:01, Vladimír Čunát wrote: > > On 15/12/2022 14.45, Peter Thomassen wrote: > >> In what sense is this document "informational" when it is called > "validator requirements", or, conversely, in what sense does it spell out > "requirements" when it is only "informational" and not "standards track"? > > > > The current *title* says "Recommendations". I don't think the draft > name matters much, especially after it becomes an RFC. > > Apologies. I was suffering from the misconception / misreading that the > words from the draft name are also in the title. -- Of course, the name is > irrelevant. > > Thank you for clarifying, Vladimír! > > Best, > Peter > > -- > https://desec.io/ > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
