On 08/05/2024 22:02, John Levine wrote:
Actually, we are developing an unrelated scheme that has need of the same zone structure for signaling but not involving DNSSEC itself, and would see some advantage in utilizing the same standard top level underscore naming for signaling use in general.It appears that libor.peltan <libor.pel...@nic.cz> said:Hi all,On the other hand, couldn't it actually be beneficial if the signalling zone name is generic enough, and if (in theory on the future) it is shared with possibly completely different signals, possibly unrelated to DNSSEC?It doesn't seem very likely to me that someone would come up with an unrelated scheme that somehow used the same zone structure. And it's not like there's any shortage of potential name strings.
_dnssec or maybe _dnssec-signal tell people what the name is used for.
Thanks & Regards, Adam.
OpenPGP_0xE4C76DBFE283909C.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- dnsop@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dnsop-le...@ietf.org
