On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Jim Reid <j...@rfc1035.com> wrote: > >> On 27 Sep 2016, at 09:45, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: >> >> Personally, I like the term. > > Meh. I wish the WG could stop the shed-painting on a frankly pointless detail > and concentrate its efforts on producing a viable problem statement.
.... we have two of them -- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-adpkja-dnsop-special-names-problem and https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tldr-sutld-ps-04 . Neither of them is great, but both are IMO "viable" - I prefer the second, but whichever the chairs decide to adopt will be a fine starting point. Once there is an adopted problem statement we should be able to actually make some progress on updating the document (I think that both are actually fairly close, but we'll see), and should also be able to unpark ALT. ALT doesn't solve any of the major issues, but it *does* create a safe place for those people who want to experiment and build alternate resolution systems -- and takes some of the pressure off while we discuss solutions.... W > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
