On 9/10/26 03:48, Joe Abley wrote: > I totally agree that an RFC describing how to use the RRTYPEs is > highly desirable. There are some implementors who prefer or require > a published RFC before they will support the RRTYPE as more than an > opaque type.
Agreed, yes, that's why we're bringing the draft. > I don't think the document work needs to happen in dnsop, though. > The wg already has a considerable backlog of work. Some possible > alternatives: > independent stream; you will need to recruit some reviewers, for which > I would be happy to help) > AD-sponsored individual submissionThank you, excellent advice, Patrik and I will deliberate. In the mean time, if anyone has any other input or advice, please let us know.
On 9/10/26 04:53, S Moonesamy wrote:
The designated expert(s) are better placed to reply to the question.
If you mean the RRtype registration designated experts, they already approved the new RRtypes and specified the code points, 69 and 70, in the IANA registry.
If you mean the inter-organizational liaisons, Patrik, co-author of this draft, is an IETF-ISO liaison.
I suggest asking the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and the International Organization for Standardization for feedback tomitigate potential third-party registration issues.
Can you give an example of a third-party registration issue? What would that look like?
-Bill
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
