On Mon, 2023-06-26 at 07:47 -0700, Peter van Dijk via Datatracker wrote: > ## 3.2 > > A previous review > (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/sJlbyhro-4bDhfGBnXhhD5Htcew/) > suggested that the then-chosen tuple was not specific enough, and also said it > was too prescriptive. I agree with both. The current draft prescribes nothing, > which I'm generally a fan of! > > However, speaking to a coworker (the one likely responsible for implementing > this draft, if it turns out our implementation deviates from its final form) > told me "some guidance would be nice". After some discussion on > prescriptiveness, here is our suggestion: do not prescribe, but mention > (without wanting to be complete) a few tuple formats that might make sense, > and > suggest that implementations document what they choose here.
I can't believe I forgot this bit: While this document is in draft status, an implementation status section would be great. This would allow us to see if the document is implementable as is (I'd hope so, as it describes behaviour, with plenty of developer freedoms), and if implementers make choices for which it turns out it *does* make sense to perhaps write them down normatively. Kind regards, -- Peter van Dijk PowerDNS.COM BV - https://www.powerdns.com/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
