> On 20 Jul 2017, at 03:12, Woodworth, John R <john.woodwo...@centurylink.com> > wrote: > > For now, I think we've narrowed the draft opposition to two camps: > > Camp#1) Don't force me to use IPv6 reverse, I simply will never > > and > > Camp#2) Don't break DNS, even for a second
Well I don't recognise either of these camps. What was it you were saying about beauty being in the eye of the beholder? :-) I'm in Camp N (for some definition of N): where's the use case/justification for BULK and is it worth the effort? It's not clear if the WG has fully considered the impact of BULK on signed reverse zones. Doing something to the DNS that further hinders uptake of DNSSEC is probably a bad idea IMO. YMMV. Proposed protocol changes which do that need to come with compelling benefits that outweigh this drawback. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
