I have no problem with this in spirit. But I always wonder why the presentation formats, as in section 3.2 and 4.2, have MUST concerning how the record is "written." I've never considered the presentation format to be subject to a standard...I realize that's just my opinion, but the on-the-wire format is what is subject to interoperability concerns.
The document can have the MUSTs but I'd prefer SHOULDs. It's right that there's only one way these addresses ever get written, so the MUST seems logical, OTOH, it just seems over the top to demand it be written one way or another. I certainly understand it is INTENDED to be written as documented, but is it a sin if I implement something else? (How would an alternate form hinder interoperability.) Apparently I am a little cranky today. On Apr 14, 2013, at 12:08, joel jaeggli wrote: > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes as AD sponsored > individual sumission... > Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:55:52 -0700 > From: joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> > To: dns...@ietf.org, dns...@ietf.org > CC: draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrty...@tools.ietf.org > > > > I've been asked to take this document on as AD sponsored individual > submission. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jabley-dnsext-eui48-eui64-rrtypes-02 > > If there's anyone who has strenuous objections to that, please let me know. > > joel > > > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 There are no answers - just tradeoffs, decisions, and responses.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
