Hi Stephane, Thanks for the review, it’s helpful.
I’ll leave it to the editors to take the first pass at integrating your comments, but: > On Feb 8, 2017, at 4:15 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzme...@nic.fr> wrote: > > Biggest problem with the draft: it fails to mention the only real > technical problem with RFC 6761, the lack of a formal language for the > registry, thus preventing the programmers of resolving software to > compile automatically the code for the various cases. > If you have a specific suggestion on how to improve the registry, please consider posting an internet-draft. The roadmap for DNSOP on special use names has for some time included the expectation that a problem statement would precede solutions, but that problem statement is in WGLC after extensive development, and we’ve returned the alt-tld draft to active status as well. We didn’t encourage proposed changes until we had some level of agreement on what problem(s) we might be attempting to solve. However, it seems we’ve now gotten that far. thanks, Suzanne _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
