On 20 Dec 2016, at 8:35, Ray Bellis wrote:
The document primarily covers BIND's behaviour.
Noted. That seems like a good reason for ISC to document it.
It would be good if other implementations were completely compatible with that,
Is this so that different implementations use the same master file format, or something else?
and this also forms the baseline for potential future enhancements which could be under IETF change control.
It is completely unnecessary for the future enhancements to be based on an RFC. The IETF has experience where trying to change a vendor-specific informational RFC to something better was harder than starting from "here's a way to do it; Appendix A shows the differences in how This Big Vendor did it earlier".
On 20 Dec 2016, at 8:44, Tim Wicinski wrote:
Additionally, the authors are looking at addressing addressing several additions, issues, etc with the followup -bis draft which would be more likely standards track. This is following the edns-client-subnet model for better or for worse
Worse. And there are other examples in other areas of the IETF where this turned out to be worse.
--Paul Hoffman _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
