Hi Stephane, Quoting Stephane Bortzmeyer on Tuesday January 16, 2018: > > One of the annoying things at IETF is that there is no clear directive > on the order to do things which involve several stakeholders. At the > discussion in dnsop about draft-bortzmeyer-dname-root, Kim Davies > (IANA) suggested that it wasn't productive to discuss the policy part > of the project since there isn't even an EPP mapping for it. So, what > is the right order and who decides on it? (Personal advice: there is > no order, things are faster when done in parallel.)
That is not quite what I said. I was responding to a thread on dnsop a few months back where there was the suggestion that implementing support for DNAME records in the root zone would be trivial. My view is that it is not likely to be trivial, and as an illustrative example noted "Just one of the many things that would need to be looked at is how to transmit DNAME provisioning requests via EPP. I don't know if there is even an EPP mapping for this." My view on this work is that if there is a broader application for a DNAME mapping, it is a good idea to standardize it. If it is really only intended for the root zone, for a speculative future where we may need to provision DNAME records, then I don't think it is necessary for that reason alone. In such a scenario, there are alternatives such as developing private extensions between the only two parties who would ever be putting it to use. kim _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
