On 08/05/2024 22:02, John Levine wrote:
It appears that libor.peltan said:
Hi all,
On the other hand, couldn't it actually be beneficial if the signalling
zone name is generic enough, and if (in theory on the future) it is
shared with possibly completely different signals, possibly unrelated
Actually, we are developing an unrelated scheme that has need of the same
zone structure for signaling but not involving DNSSEC itself, and would see
some advantage in utilizing the same standard top level underscore naming for
signaling use in general.
Would you want to put the signal info in
I wrote a note to Peter and his co-author on this discussion and we(chairs)
feel that Paul W is correct in saying _signal is too generic.
We should not overload any underscore label for multiple purposes. If
another type of operator signalling appears, a new label can be acquired.
Being specific
