On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 10:23:59AM -0500, Daniel Senie wrote: > At 09:51 AM 12/16/2005, David Blacka wrote: > >Are you aware of draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid-00.txt? > > I wasn't. Just reviewed it. Basically is what I personally believe is > the correct and sufficient solution. That it's in the queue of > another WG does, I think, strengthen my argument that the draft under > discussion in DNSOP is in fact not a good requirements document.
Actually, NSID was written from the same inputs as the current serverid: the discussion in DNSOP and elsewhere on the need to document the existing mechanism, its limitations, and proposed parameters for what a better one would look like. In other words, the serverid document has in fact already served the specific purpose of documenting requirements. A protocol document was then written around a mechanism for meeting the requirements, in a group that does protocol work (DNSEXT). Documenting where NSID came from is IMHO still worthwhile, although the original intent was to have serverid published by now. However, arguing that serverid is useless because NSID exists gets chronology and causality both exactly backwards. . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
