On 24Dec14, Mark Delany allegedly wrote: > > The draft is available here: > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandergaast-dnsop-edns-client-subnet/ > > a) 6.2 - Intent of SCOPE NETMASK > > "In both cases, the value of the SCOPE NETMASK in the reply has strong > implications with regard to how the reply will be cached" > > I wonder whether SCOPE NETMASK should have a bigger impact beyond how > the reply is cached?
Tap tap tap. Is this thing turned on? I think 3-4 people made some well-considered feedback on this draft, but there has been zero discussion or author feedback for some six weeks now. Does that mean there is insufficient interest in progressing this draft? I ask because in my dayjob we've been recently approached by some large eyeball providers who are now willing to invest in upgrading their resolver infrastructure to support client-subnet now that they see the benefits. It'd be a pity if this died on the vine just as others are starting to come around to the idea. Mark.
pgpGZBF5mZcRH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
