Hi Tony, On 3/26/19 4:32 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
I'm overloaded at the moment so I wasn't able to rev the draft in time for IETF 104. I was planning to (basically) re-focus on the meaning of the bits on the wire, and remove any requirements about how zone contents are provisioned. Instead there would be a series of examples of existing ANAME-like systems.
I think that would be the wrong direction. I believe there is a need to standardize the ANAME resolution process and so my suggestion would be to reduce the scope by focusing just on how to do that on the provisioning side (and leave secondary servers and resolvers out of scope for now).
Matthijs
Tony.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
