In favour of adoption but like to see text from both AUTH and recursive behaviour.
Not convinced the situation should be this black and white - eg perhaps partial glue would be enough not to require TC=1 or behaviour for resolvers could be a little more advanced to try with partial before going to TCP. If my request seem stupid, the draft needs clarification for stupid people like me :) Paul Sent from my iPhone > On May 18, 2020, at 14:30, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:50 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run >> regular call for adoptions over next few months. >> We are looking for *explicit* support for adoption. >> >> >> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional >> >> The draft is available here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional/ >> >> 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. >> > > I support adoption by the WG, believe it is suitable, and am willing to > review and contribute text. > > Brian > > >> This call for adoption ends: 1 June 2020 >> >> 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
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
