On Sunday, December 20, 2015 08:13:42 AM joel jaeggli wrote: > > I think we dramatically better off, if we are willing to critically > consider the implications of proposals someplace and expose the record > of that, and I don't have a better location on offer then here.
i was not trying to stifle discussion. what a wg chair told me was that the essence of a dnsop rfc was, "if you're trying to accomplish thing X, here's one way to do it." sadly for me, because of the ietf's imprimatur, such specifications will be used in industry as if they were recommendations. in the specific example of edns client subnet, i have previously supplied extensive technical argument against the systemic costs of expanding the Q-tuple in this way. those arguments did not find consensus in the WG, and are not reflected in the draft. see also "afasterinetnet.com". -- P. Vixie
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
