Peter van Dijk writes: > On 28 Mar 2017, at 16:35, Dave Lawrence wrote: > > I grant that there is reason for pause because both Nominum and > > OpenDNS have squatted code points which have duplicate functionality. > > Should this squatting perhaps be documented in the style of RFC 8093 to > avoid future surprises?
Yes, I think that's a good idea. > > Speaking of Ray's draft, our proposal is able to handle his use case > > but unfortunately our use cases are not achievable in his. > Please note that neither draft handles the use case of also passing the > port number, which in a world of growing CGN deployment, may soon prove > quite important. I agree that neither handles it explicitly. Ray's singular use case doesn't really need it, and our draft can handle ports through the DNS address family mechanism if needed, albeit less compactly that could be otherwise envisioned. If this were something that others think should somehow be made explicit via some other mechanism, I could see incorporating that. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
