In favor of adoption. And while we're at it, doesn't it make sense to (kinda proactively) include some potential transports in the draft (like DoQ) to avoid RFC one-liners in future? Even only to note later that those didn't see widespread adoption afterwards.
-- Töma On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 7:09 PM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Back in 2014, we started with "DNS Terminology" which became RFC7719 > Then In 2016, this became a BCP version of "DNS Terminology" which is now > RFC8499 > > Now, in 2109, there is a request to include additional terms to reflect > the new transports DNS is being used over. There is still discussion over > whether all these terms make sense, but the underlying need exists. > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-dns-terminology-ter/ > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption > by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > > Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc. > > This call for adoption ends: 15 August 2019 > > Thanks, > tim wicinski > DNSOP co-chair > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
