On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 8:53 AM <internet-dra...@ietf.org> wrote: > > A new version (-09) has been submitted for > draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones: > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-09.txt > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-09.html > > > The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones/ > > Diff from previous version: > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-dnsop-dns-catalog-zones-09 > > Thanks for the update, it does address my issues and I've updated my ballot to Yes..
I still have two comments to consider, but you can treat these as non-blocking. Why must a catalog server / zone only support one version at most? Eg if version "3" comes out that would add some things, but is backwards compatible with version "2", wouldn't it be useful to be able to have an RRset of two RRs, showing it supports both version 2 and 3? Why is there a constraint to only allow at most 1 version per catalog zone ? I find the valid use of the name "invalid" to be pretty horrible. An engineer looking at a catalog might quickly believe the invalid is a bug where it should have shown a real domain. Why not _catalog.arpa or something ? NITS: A mangled quote (eg ") made it into the document Paul
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
