On Aug 2, 2019, at 10:59, Töma Gavrichenkov <xima...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. I think for the sake of all of our sanity our terminology documents should describe observed usage, not make speculative decisions on what to call things that nobody has yet needed a name for. Joe _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
