On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Paul Hoffman wrote:
and condemn some
of them as bad?
That works for me too, although I think it is not that useful to do so in an
Informational RFC.
Then merge Section 7 Practices to Avoid with Section 8 Functional Design
and leave out any (intended or not) judgement on what kind of DNS lying
is to be avoided or tolerated, as there is clearly no concensus on which
to avoid and which to tolerate.
And change the title from "Recommended Configuration and Use of DNS
Redirect" to something like "Recommended Configuration to limit harm of
DNS Redirect", and preface the document with a statement that all DNS
manipulation is error prone, disfunctional with DNSSEC, and better done
in other ways.
Oh, please. If you want to re-ignite the period flamewar about what RFCs should
and should not be published, that's fine, but don't waste our time here with
it. The DNSOP WG has no control over that issue. RFC 2026 is the reference, and
repeated attempts to change it have met with failure.
This "informational" is suggesting via the "recommended configuration" to be
a BCP document, not an informational.
Paul
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
