On 6.4.2018 13:18, Peter van Dijk wrote: > On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:35, tjw ietf wrote: > >> After walking through the 168 emails on this draft in the inbox, I feel >> we're ready to take this to WGLC. >> >> (We are aware of the two points raised my Job and Paul) > > Especially given that an implementation is in fact available (in Knot), > why not take this opportunity to start demanding Implementation Status > sections for those drafts where that requirement makes sense? Because it > certainly makes sense here!
Please note that we did not update Knot Resolver to comply with latest version of the draft *yet*. This is likely to happen over next couple weeks, not sooner. We have hands full with other tasks at the moment. Of course patches to https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/knot/knot-resolver/blob/master/modules/ta_sentinel/ta_sentinel.lua are more than welcome! Speaking of Joes comment, it makes sense to me. AFAIK other resolvers are going to implement this anyway so there is no point in rushing the RFC out and setting it in stone before it gets implemented at least twice. -- Petr Špaček @ CZ.NIC _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
