(these are just my comments alone. So take it as such) The draft states in the Motivation section:
"The motivation and design of this protocol enhancement is tied to the DNS root zone [InterNIC]." Your Design Overview states that this will work for zones that are "relatively stable and have infrequent updates". I think some descriptive text about the type of zone this RR type attempts to address should be more clearly spelled out in your Abstract. For the ZONEMD RR Type, where in the registry do the authors think it should go? While some of that falls on the Expert Review process, I think the document authors should capture their rationale in the document. If the proposed RR Type is greater than 256 (which I think it does), it does not appear to require a Standards Track document, just Expert Review. I ask this since the document is listed as "Standards Track" and the document is narrowly scoped to focus on the Root Zone. Additionally the document states: "This specification is OPTIONAL to implement by both publishers and consumers of zone file data." This appears to be contradictory to me, but hopefully someone can illuminate me. I ask all of this because we have seen the working group start to push back on similarly scoped Proposed Standards (kskroll-sentinel). Though I do find it amusing that you use "The Camel" as the excuse for such a limited scope use case, even while requesting a Proposed Standard! Now I will find that you've already answered all these questions and I failed to find them in the mail archive. tim
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
