On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 6:18 PM Paul Hoffman <paul.hoff...@icann.org> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2020, at 6:03 PM, Joe Abley <jab...@hopcount.ca> wrote: > > I don't object to the intended status (standards track). There are > reports of multiple independent implementations included in the document, > which seems pleasing and proper. > > Definitely proper. The calls for making this RFC "experimental" go against > the definition for that designation in RFC 2026, Section 4.2.1. > While I think the WG list has been rather quiet on this draft, I think it is probably best to wait for more responses either way regarding "experimental" vs "proposed standard". (ibid) section 4.1 and 4.1.1 does make reference to the maturity level of standards track documents, and includes the possibility of changes or even subsequent withdrawal of a standard based on experience. I concur with Joe, in that the document seems pretty clear, and I support moving it forward in the standards track. My $0.02 on the size issue: I think the onus should be on whoever is publishing a zone with a ZONEMD to provide guidance on what to do if a failure occurs. Similarly, publishers should be sensible on whether to include a ZONEMD based on total size and rate of change. The onus is on operators to operate their infrastructure with appropriate levels of caution. Blindly turning on processing of ZONEMD on zones from random senders might not be wise. Brian
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
