On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:21:48 EDT, Edward Lewis wrote: >At 13:53 -0400 9/27/11, Joe Abley wrote: >>Not very useful for Neustar, maybe, but I would suggest that your >>requirements in this regard are likely not to be universal. > >No argument with that. But since the question was asked... What I >meant is that although there are places that will want to implement >this, there are many that won't, including us. (Lecture on internal >monitoring, et.al., elided.) > >I'd have to say that it has been a long time since there was a trouble >ticket that needed to know which any cast instance was being hit by >the user. > >There's nothing wrong with anyone implementing this. But whether this >is a DNSOP WG item rests on how broad the interest is and if there's a >need to coordinate for interoperability reasons.
This discussion from several folks suggests that security and access control are worth thinking about more than the current draft does. As for the WG scoping question: there was enough interest that RFC-4892 was written in 2007. What's proposed is, in one sense, a more general RFC-4892. If that was intesting enough then, has anything changed to make the topic no longer interesting? Part of our motivation is that if we make diagnosis easier and more powerful, perhaps new people will want to do it. For example, enabling customers of a service to independently validate they're getting the coverage they're paying for. (Of course, you have to decide if that example is a reason for, or against :-) -John Heidemann _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
