On 10/9/18 2:21 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 10/9/2018 2:45 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
This is based on an assumption that document authors who add
enumservices are more likely to notice the need [1] to add their
service name to two tables than the IANA are. Given the respective
levels of rigor, that seems like a losing bet.
There is certainly a substantive discussion to have about this, since
the working group did.
But I'll suggest something simple, in the hope that it actually
simplifies things in process terms:
This issue was discussed at some length within the working group,
including disagreements of the sort you raise now. Eventually the
working group finally settled on the choices made in the draft.
That's a fair point. I still believe that this arrangement makes the
situation as it pertains to URL RRs worse rather than better, but I'm
willing to call myself in the rough here. If another AD sees fit to
DISCUSS this issue, I will support them. But I'll clear my own discuss
now, as it seems that we've reached a difference of opinions regarding
harm rather than demonstrable harm.
/a
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
