On 3/13/2017 8:07 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 13 Mar 2017, at 7:44, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 3/13/2017 4:11 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
The draft breaks DNSSEC.
...
I have proposed a method that would not change the RPZ response for a
non-DNSSEC client, but would add data for DNSSEC capable clients to be
>>
That sounds like an excellent bit of technical enhancement to
consider... /after/ documenting /existing/ practice.
Why "after" and not "during"?That is, if the WG document tells how this
one method of achieving a set of goals works, why not also document
other options that could have, and might in the future, be adopted? That
would certainly give the reader more context.
They are fundamentally different exercises.
A baseline document for /existing/ practice is extremely common for the
IETF to start with. It provides clarity to the community and a stable
platform for enhancement work.
Groups that try to simultaneously document existing practice /and/
define modifications tend to produce a confused specification.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
