On Jul 29, 2018, at 17:13, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * Tim Wicinski: > >> For the ZONEMD RR Type, where in the registry do the authors think it >> should go? While some of that falls on the Expert Review process, I think >> the document authors should capture their rationale in the document. If >> the proposed RR Type is greater than 256 (which I think it does), it does >> not appear to require a Standards Track document, just Expert Review. > > There is some talk in the draft about blocking ZONEMD queries through > recursive resolvers, which wiuld put it into the meta RR space, I > think. > > (But I disagree that there wouldn't be a loss of functionality—if the > ZONEMD record contained the size of the zone, clients might want to > query it, verify its signature, and only download the specified number > of bytes.) I agree with that use-case. I also don't see a compelling reason to complicate the DNS protocol by specifying that QTYPE=ZONEMD needs special handling. That's camel territory as I think Jinmei expresed concern over the other day; better just to document the RRType and let the DNS be the DNS. I also agree with Tim's observation the other day that if this is just a new RRType, then expert review is all that is procedurally required and it'd be a generous extension of what is required to document the implementation and use of the new RRType in the RFC series. Such a document would only need to be an informational and could plausibly be independent stream or AD-sponsored if it doesn't fit the charter or is otherwise unpalatable to the working group. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
