Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Now who's the one re-opening the topic?
I thought you were, but if that's not the case we can drop this part of the discussion. > I don't care what the "don't" reasons are anymore. I'm saying > we have to document them so that implementors understand the > reasons it was deliberately omitted For wildcard considerations a reference to RFC 4592 is a start, +/- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-dns-synthesis-concerns The http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-dns-choices draft might also help. It's a set of non-trivial technical DNS issues, IMO ADSP shouldn't try to explain technical details of a (rejected) approach. In parts this is still controversial, e.g., Phil's "superwildcard" idea might be good or bad. > Is that suggestion really such lunacy? Dunno, depends on how deep you want to dig into this (rat)hole. For some points I would know what they are about, but I don't know enough about DNS to tackle a documentation in an ADSP I-D. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
