As discussed in a previous thread, we've renamed the HTTPSSVC RR to be the "HTTPS" RR. The SVCB RR is keeping its name. A new version of the draft has been published with this change as well as with other changes:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https/ (We separated the rename change out as a separate version from the other changes to make it easier to diff them separately.) I think we're at the point now where it would be good to make a last call for feedback and inputs prior to asking for an early code point allocation for the HTTPS RR and SVCB RR. Erik On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 7:00 PM Alessandro Ghedini <alessan...@ghedini.me> wrote: > Hello, > > At the risk of re-opening a can of worms, there was a discussion a while > ago on > this list on renaming the SVCB and HTTPSSVC records to something else > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/dh_H24_Dq-nr4TkO0FCqySjsnC8/ > > So I was wondering where that discussion landed (if anywhere) as I can't > seem to > be able to find any resolution to that on the list. > > To be clear, I don't particularly care either way, but if a rename is > going to > happen I'd rather it happens sooner as it will affect implementers, and it > might > unduly cause people to hold back from merging/deploying code in case a > rename > actually happens, e.g. > https://github.com/miekg/dns/pull/1067#issuecomment-627807069 > > Cheers > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
