Hi Giuseppe, Thanks for your follow-up!
On 2/10/25 10:03, Giuseppe Fioccola wrote:
>From an OPSDIR point of view, I noticed that some references about the deployment are provided in section 7 on "Implementation Status". Since this section is supposed to be removed before publication, I would rather keep it and summarize the main results of the implementation especially with regards to interoperability and backwards compatibility aspects.To prevent implementation-specific text from not aging well, we could replace Section 7 with something like: At least on open source implementation already exist and at least one TLD registry is currently implementing this as an upcoming service. However, it's unclear where that text could live (it hardly justifies its own section), or whether it would even address your concern. The authors would appreciate your suggestion. [GF]: It is also ok to add a sentence as you proposed, maybe in the introduction. As a reader, I would be interested to know essentially if the implementation raised any issue or not.
Aha, now we understand better. Implementation efforts so far have not surfaced any issues. I think this is mostly true of IETF standards, as if issues had appeared during standardization, that feedback would have made it into further development of the protocol. Unless you feel strongly, the authors would therefore prefer to keep this as is. Best, Peter + co-authors _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
