The architectural context of a feature should not be divorced from its
specification. RFC is an imprimatur. With great power comes great
responsibility.
On May 7, 2014 7:18:14 PM CEST, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:12:21PM +0200, P Vixie wrote:
>> Ouch. Well so if a large body of ietf participators think wide area
>rdns is a bad idea and that this option should never be recommended
>then we would presumably have to say so in the document which
>standardized the option. Strange.
>>
>
>No, Informational status is still available. There's nothing wrong
>with that.
>
>Also, however, it seems to me that even if this went up on the
>Standards track, one wouldn't have to say whether it was a good idea.
>But you _could_ write a separate doc (and try to get it published or
>else publish it on the Independent stream) that said, "Wide Area
>Recursive DNS Considered Harmful." I think that's a separate question
>from, "How to deliver topological information from a recursive server
>to an authoritative?"
>
>A
>
>--
>Andrew Sullivan
>a...@anvilwalrusden.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>DNSOP mailing list
>DNSOP@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
