On 3/25/14, 8:39 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
On 3/24/14, 1:48 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 3/19/14, 12:42 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
5. Address possible minor changes or extensions to the DNS Protocol,
initially with a focus on the operational impacts of these changes. Act
as clearinghouse or providing advice to ADs and other WGs on EDNS0
options, new RRTYPEs, record synthesis, or other mechanics of extending
DNS to support other applications.
I fell like this is intended to allow work on issues related to the
root/tld registration but without being explicit. I'm a little on the
fence with respect to how explicit we want to but I think we should
actually call it out.
We were trying to be explicitly vague, or vaguely explicit. I was
thinking we could say something like such as root/tld conflicts or
namespace or application space conflicts.
if I had to channel my other colleagues on the IESG it's probably
important enough to warrant it's own bullet. I will ultimately get my
own chance to whittle at the text so it's just a suggestion.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
