On 2023-06-07 13:08 -04, Tim Wicinski <tjw.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just a reminder we're looking for any feedback on continuing work on this > document. The Chairs/OverLord Warren feel significant work on this > document is needed, but that may not be relevant.
The document seems to have a rather pessimistic view on running a validator. It has this huge list of things that an operator has to do and does not assign any importance to them - everything seems to be equally important. If I were to read this as the person responsible for running the recursive resolver at an enterprise or at an ISP I'd think: That sounds like effort and incredibly fragile, it's probably best to not enable validation. It would be nice to have an informational RFC on the topic, but I'm not convinced this is it. Maybe Andrew's suggestion to split this up is the way forward. Maybe have one document with minimum requirements (correct time, stuff like that) and take it from there. > > We're wrapping this feedback up this Sunday 11 June. > > (and Thanks Andrew for your comments) > > tim -- In my defence, I have been left unsupervised. _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
