Hey Bill, On 9 Sep 2026, at 18:57, Bill Woodcock <[email protected]> wrote:
> RFC 6895 templates for both types were submitted to > [email protected] on 14 August, and the two RRTYPEs are > assigned... This draft is about standardizing their use so that they can be > referenced within the DIEM RFCs and elsewhere. As you mention the codepoints are already assigned, so you don't need a published document for that reason. I totally agree that an RFC describing how to use the RRTYPEs is highly desirable though, even though it's not needed by the IANA registry policy (and even if you didn't want to cite it in a diem document). Plus there are some implementors who prefer or require a published RFC before they will support the RRTYPE as more than an opaque type. I don't think the document work needs to happen in dnsop, though. If I was a co-chair of dnsop I might observe that the wg already has a considerable backlog of work. The expertise in this group is always a great resource, but what I've seen of this thread so far suggests you are spending more time explaining diem than you are getting feedback about whether your RRTYPE spec is clear. Some possible alternatives: - independent stream (I have done this in the past; conflict review with dnsop should be straightforward; sometimes the ISE is busy though; you will need to recruit some reviewers, for which I would be happy to help) - AD-sponsored individual submission (I have done this too; if you have an AD that is interested, perhaps this is a reasonable idea; if you find an AD and they need a shepherd, again happy to help) - adopt the document in diem, since that's where it's applicable and request a DNS directorate review Just comments from the public gallery in case they are helpful :-) Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
