Hi Rick, On Jun 27, 2024, at 10:46, Rick Taylor <r...@tropicalstormsoftware.com> wrote:
> <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. Speaking only as a recent reader of BCP 42 / RFC 6895, section 3.1 contains the guidance you are looking for. Consensus from the dnsop working group is not required, although as you have seen opinions are freely available. Specifications in the form of IETF documents are also not required to reserve a codepoint. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
