RE: SRV records considered dubious

[Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no>]

--On 23. november 2006 08:18 -0800 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" 
<pbaker at verisign.com> wrote:

> The draft is incomplete. It does not review all the technical options.
> These were raised on the DNSEXT list months ago.

Where's the draft?
> If you want there to be consensus on a draft then it has to put all the
> options fairly.
>
> If you want to refer to the draft as an authority you have to consider
> all the options.

Where's the draft? (of the options, not of -dns-choices)
> > I also do not agree that the document should not proceed
> > without addressing the pointer mechanism. The document is not
> > of the type that specifies new solutions, it documents
> > tradeoffs. If your pointer mechanism would be more than
> > 'mail-ware' (i.e. had sufficient review and consensus) then
> > it could have been part of the equation. I think that its to
> > late for that.
>
> How is it going to have review if the editors refuse to consider it?

Where's the draft?

Something that is not documented even as an internet-draft cannot be 
seriously considered in a review of current options line -choices.

                     Harald




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf