> On 21 Jun 2018, at 00:13, Paul Vixie <p...@redbarn.org> wrote: > > ... >> So, SIG(0) could be many nice things, but without more implementations >> is is hobbled... > > i'd love to see it implemented. I would also add my voice to those who would love to see this implemented. I have looked at using SIG(0) many times in the past and its lack of support is what has prevented me. I think systems like Wes's localroot[1] system would be much improved with support for SIG(0) and could even allow operators, and software distributors to support a a list of LocalRoot services out of the box without additional configuration by users John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
- [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) Ondřej Surý
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) Ondřej Surý
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) Tony Finch
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) Paul Vixie
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) ietf-dnsops
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) Shumon Huque
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?... Joe Abley
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and u... Warren Kumari
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (a... Shumon Huque
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) Ondřej Surý
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) Mark Andrews
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [DNSOP] SIG(0) useful (and used?) Bjørn Mork