Hi Q, Thanks for this feedback, which we will address as follows in the next revision:
On 12/13/24 15:34, Q Misell wrote:
In general I SUPPORT this draft progressing to an RFC, baring one (hopefully) easily addressable nit: ยง 2.3 should be clearer on if a scheme is RRTYPE specific, or always has the same meaning in the protocol.
NEW Schemes are independent of RRtype. They merely specify a method of contacting the target (whereas the RRtype is part of the notification payload). Best, Peter -- https://desec.io/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
