Mark Delany writes: > I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that there was a plan to > rewrite this spec in light of actually implementation experiences. Is > this draft that rewrite? I ask as this seems to be more a clean-up of > the original draft.
There is a plan to rewrite the spec, but not in this draft. The existing deployed base meant that no meaningful changes to the protocol under the current option code could be made without significant pain. There is no will among the providers currently using it to assume that pain. So yes, this draft is just a cleanup addressing the existing implementations. > I would think that if we're to proceed with this protocol then the > white list requirement should be removed from the spec. I don't see language in the current draft that makes a whitelist a requirement. The language I do see doesn't even use 2119 capitalization, so it's even softer than usual. If there is a statement in there that you think mandates whitelists, I am amenable to modifying it. I see that as an endpoint operational policy issue, not a core protocol issue. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
