I support adoption of this document—although I agree that the names do need some bike shedding if/when it is adopted! This is a good mechanism to use for ESNI keys and Alt-Svc. I also think that the extensibility it provides is important property (for example, I am proposing to use it for designating encrypted DNS servers in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pauly-dprive-adaptive-dns-privacy).
I am also willing to contribute text and review the document. Thanks, Tommy > On Oct 7, 2019, at 7:37 AM, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > All > > We want to thank the authors for working on this. The chairs > feel that part of the discussion around this document would be to > resolve: > - ANAME/HTTPSSVC possible overlaps > - The RR Type Name (no one seems to be in love with current names) > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc > > The draft is available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc/ > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nygren-dnsop-svcb-httpssvc/> > > 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: 21 October 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
