Ray, While I can’t speak for Ralph, I also suggested that comments from DNSOP participants on these drafts should go to the HOMENET WG list, because they were input to a HOMENET WGLC.
It does seem to me that the discussion of DNSSEC, including the opposition of the chair of ICANN to an unsigned delegation in the root zone for .homenet, is input that the WG should have, but HOMENET needs to decide what to make of that input. What’s the best way for DNS experts in DNSOP to provide input to HOMENET on these drafts in WGLC? thanks, Suzanne > On Dec 14, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Ray Bellis <r...@bellis.me.uk> wrote: > > > > On 14/12/2016 17:24, Ralph Droms wrote: >> Is there any way this discussion could be moved to homenet, which is >> where the use case originates and the WG last call is taking place? > > Ralph, > > I think this is primarily a DNSSEC problem, and the expertise for that > is here rather than in Homenet. > > Ray > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
