On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 at 14:01, Petr Špaček <petr.spa...@nic.cz> wrote:
> 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.. My grandmother used to tell me you can’t build a stable chair with just two legs. Three is the minimum. Or perhaps four: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BrokenChair.jpg Kind regards, Job >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
