[ Quoting <jo...@taugh.com> in "Re: [DNSOP] WGLC for draft-ietf-dns..." ]
It appears that Suzanne Woolf <swo...@pir.org> said:
Colleagues,
This email begins a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion-02
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-zoneversion/).
If you've reviewed this document and think it's ready for publication, please
let us and the WG know, by responding on-list to this message. We particularly
need to hear
from implementers and operators whether this EDNS option is implementable and
useful.
If you don't think it's ready, and have specific concerns or suggestions,
please let us know about those too.
Since it's a year old, has anyone implemented it beyond the one server listed
in the draft?
I think it's an interesting idea but I also don't want to spend time on it if
it's just going to be filed and forgotten.
I looked into this for https://github.com/miekg/dns
The option is trivial to implemented (in an auth server). I.e. seems similar to
NSID.
"Resolver and forwarder behavior is undefined" is too weak IMO, and should
point to the
hop-by-hop nature for EDNS0 options, are explicitly say what's expected here
wrt to this
option.
/Miek
--
Miek Gieben
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
