On May 16, 2014, at 7:56 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 2014, at 5:35 AM, S Moonesamy <sm+i...@elandsys.com> wrote: >> I sent a few comments about that CDNI draft. The DNS discussion in the >> draft was problematic. It is worth documenting what people are doing. It >> is worthwhile to consider whether the mechanism should be standardized by >> the IETF. > > Did you feel that your comments were adequately addressed by the working > group? > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop As a chair of the working group where this draft started (dnsext), I can state the discussion was “dysfunctional” there where some people strongly supporting this and few people saying this would cause the world to end and calling the proponents names. Most people avoided getting into the food fight, thus there is was no way to judge if the proposal had significant support. I personally want to see this published, a) as the type code has been allocated (by the ENDS0 Options Expert: yours truly) b) this is in use and this option has a role in certain environments. c) we need to be more rational in judging proposals on their merits not just by the initial smell test. Olafur _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
