[On 06 Apr, @ 00:16, Rob wrote in "Re: [dnsop] draft serverid-04 ..."] > Since dnsop-serverid is in WG last call, it would be useful to know > whether the WG: > > a) Agrees with my characterization of Paul's proposal as a change (or > expansion, if you prefer) of the goals for this work item; > > b) Agrees with Paul on this change in goals. > > Silence will be interpreted as "yes" on (a) and "no" on (b). > > Finally, please note that nothing above rules out future work along > the lines Paul suggests. The issue on the table is just whether we > need to reopen dnsop-serverid to address Paul's point. > > </hat>
I think Paul's idea has some merit. Also I think that serverid should go forward to at least document the current practise. The whole id.server stuff is already the defacto standard, there is nothing the IETF can do about that, -- grtz, - Miek http://www.miek.nl http://www.nlnetlabs.nl . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
