On 13 Mar 2017, at 7:44, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 3/13/2017 4:11 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
The draft breaks DNSSEC.
...
I have proposed a method that would not change the RPZ response for a
non-DNSSEC client, but would add data for DNSSEC capable clients to
be
That sounds like an excellent bit of technical enhancement to
consider... /after/ documenting /existing/ practice.
Why "after" and not "during"? That is, if the WG document tells how this
one method of achieving a set of goals works, why not also document
other options that could have, and might in the future, be adopted? That
would certainly give the reader more context.
--Paul Hoffman
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
