On May 7, 2014, at 11:53 PM, Danny McPherson <da...@tcb.net> wrote: > > On May 7, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Suzanne Woolf <suzworldw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This sounds to me like a) support for working on edns-client-subnet (and >> possibly things like it in the future), with b) a resulting RFC as >> "Informational". >> >> I've found this discussion very helpful in solidifying the thoughts Tim >> already wrote about, particularly with regards to carrying out our new >> charter. Thank you all. > > I support publication of this “stupid DNS trick” as an RFC .. of some sort, > particularly given the breath of deployment. That said, I’ve seen some of > the warts and am sympathetic to Paul’s aging architectural concerns and I > think some review from the abundance of DNS experts here will likely serve it > well :-)
Fully agreed. > > As for the publication track here, or any other [E]DNS extensions similar > application, whether deemed unorthodox or unfashionable, I don’t think there > should be blanket discretion and edict by the chairs, we have processes that > say what can be published on Experimental, Informational, or Standards Track, > IIRC… Ah, sorry. Was trying to reflect what the discussion was saying, not impose an “edict”. It seemed like a reasonable starting position. Do you disagree? If so I’ll hope you’ll say what you think on the subject…. > Then again, perhaps DNSOP is not the place to document deployed and > operational DNS stuff and we should revive DNSEXT to discussed operationally > deployed DNS stuff, particularly given the charter discussions as of late. > Or, um.. :) best, Suzanne _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
