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

Reply via email to