Hi George, On Jan 30, 2018, at 21:49, George Michaelson <g...@algebras.org> wrote:
>> The problem you hit was in BIND. To get around it, you simply add >> "check-names master warn;" to the options. > > And with this.. he was good again. So, modulo the implementation > cost/consequence, I'm good here. > > But, if this is detail, then I'm back at 10,000ft: noting the IETF is > all about detail, are we mostly good here? > > Because.. I really want this closed off. I like it, and I am keen for it to be implemented. I dislike Warren's compromise on xm-- for all the reasons Paul mentioned (but also "oh my god no, please no" just on general principles). I would like it to proceed so we can see the kind of swift implementation that will teach us something about the DNS. I made a comment some time ago in response to someone's (Warren's again, I think, but I'm not sure) observed confusion in others about the draft. I recall that I suggested that the draft include some explicit advice for all the various actors here (resolver implementers, zone managers) so that it was more clear who was doing what. I'm stil willing to contribute text if anybody cares, since I seem to remember feeling correct about that observation, and I don't *think* I have noticed a rev of the draft since then, but I also didn't notice any other people say anything like that and I'm perfectly willing to be overwhelmed by the silent majority or to have a more recent revision pointed out to me with the patience normally reserved for the young and the dangerously insane. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
