>>> What is at issue, IMO, is whether the Internet is better off >>> having a couple of RRTYPEs around with no documentation or >>> having them documented. >> >> there are two solutions to this > > Probably more than two if your comment indicates that you agree > that having registered RRTYPEs documented is, on balance, better > than not having them documented: > > (1) We can continue along the path of Informational RFC > publication in the IETF Stream > > (2) Joe could have submitted the document to the ISE and > requested Informational RFC publication in the Independent > stream. > > (3) Joe could post the definitional document on a web site > somewhere that could provide a stable reference and then ask > IANA to incorporate that reference, presumably in URL form, > rather than the name of an I-D in the registry. If this is a > Canadian initiative, perhaps the Canadian government would like > to provide that location and reference but, clearly, there are > other alternatives. > > Did you have something else in mind?
remove the rrtypes from the registry
