Hi Bill,
At 09:57 AM 09-09-2026, Bill Woodcock wrote:
One question on which we think input might be particularly
useful: We defined these with one RRTYPE per maintainer
organization, where the alternative would have been a single generic
external-registry type discriminated by organization _within_ the
data. We chose the former; we assume that the argument against
would be that additinal RRTYPEs would be needed if the pattern gets reused.
The designated expert(s) are better placed to reply to the question.
The draft discusses matters relevant to the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe and the International Organization for
Standardization. I suggest asking those organizations for feedback
to mitigate potential third-party registration issues.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
