Hi Scott, <chair hat on>
I absolutely sympathise with your need to "grab an RRTYPE and make progress", but there is a process choice to be made here: * Do DNSOPS want the RRTYPE registrations to integrate with the wider work of the DTN working group? In which case discussion like this must continue, and the document should be adopted by the WG. * Or is everyone happy to register the RRTYPEs as "ScottJ and colleagues need some unique RRTYPEs for the solution they're working on - no alignment with the wider work of the DTN WG implied"? I would propose calling the RRTYPE NODEID not IPN to make this clear, and not have the reference specification be an IETF document. I'm genuinely not trying to scupper this work. I'm actually happy with either approach, I'm just trying to ensure moving fast doesn't accidently set perceived standards that then consume WG cycles in the future to align with current work. But before we consume too much more of all of our time, a decision needs to be made on the approach, and I think Erik (DTN AD), the DNSOPS Designated Experts/Chairs and Scott need to discuss their preferred options. We have "Naming and addressing" as part of the DTN WG charter, so this work could be adopted if the WG is willing, but that may not suit Scott's timeline. Cheers, Rick _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
