At 12:12 PM +1000 6/15/10, Mark Andrews wrote: >In message <p06240867c8385b270...@[10.20.30.158]>, Paul Hoffman writes: >> At 4:23 PM -0400 6/11/10, Derek Diget wrote: >> >Raising hand timidly.... >> >> In this group!? :-) >> >> >Instead of listing the zones in section 4 (which then will get hard >> >coded into implementations), follow section 6 and register the zones in >> >the new/to-be-created IANA assignment registry. This will force >> >implementations to go look at the assignment registry and maybe more >> >aware of the dynamic nature of some of these zones. As the draft is >> >now, some implementors probably will stop reading after section 5. :( >> >> Good call. +1 > >The zone listed are intended to be stable enough in usage that they >can be frozen in code. Zones added to the registry should be of a >similar level of stability. It would be a very rare event for a >zone to be removed from the registry and it would take decades, if >ever, that the zone would be untainted.
Probably true, but not relevant to the discussion. The idea is to force implementers to look at the registry so that they see *future* additions to it, even if they get there from reading this RFC-to-be. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
