On Jun 7, 2023, at 1:05 AM, Philip Homburg
wrote:
>
>> We still have time to add those known operational considerations.
>> In fact, we should be listing those even if this is an experimental
>> RFC.
>
> The experiment could just be to gain operational experience. We can be upfront
> that we
Hi Paul,
On second read, it is better if I address the whole section.
The more correct version of the changes is the following:
Text in "4.6.2. Receiving a Response over Do53" could change
FROM
--
If Q is not in Do53-queries[X]:
On Jun 6, 2023, at 8:42 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 11:23 AM Hollenbeck, Scott
Hi all,
As for the experimental/standard discussion I have a maybe naive
observation, but if this draft is experimental and the experiment
succeeds (whatever succeeds means, in my view gathering useful
operational experience and paving the road for DoT/DoQ on
authoritatives) I don't expect
> We still have time to add those known operational considerations.
> In fact, we should be listing those even if this is an experimental
> RFC.
The experiment could just be to gain operational experience. We can be upfront
that we don't know what will happen, and encourage people to be careful.
