At 16:39 +0100 11/21/05, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:

>it by" for review. Personally I commit to provide this sort of review (so now
>and then) and I sincerely hope that there are more persons that are willing
>to make this sort of commitment.
>
>We are now talking about review of DNSEXT working group documents. That is
>where we have our specific responsibility.
>
>peer-namedropper,


Dear peer gynt,

Let's say bert.secret-wg.org decides that it is a good idea to put in
a txt record at the apex of the zone that discloses the location of
the next event Bert will attend and implements this. Further, a
draft is submitted, intended to ask for a new RR type "NXTEVT" to be
used by all domains to state where they will next be represented and
that this record SHOULD(2119) be included in all NS responses for the
domain name.

You can bet that this would be "passed by" the DNSEXT WG and it would
get thumbs down. (Special processing, etc.) This idea would never
get to RFC with these rules.

However, this doesn't bar the proposer going ahead anyway and hack
into an open source name server and put in this record. There's
nothing stopping this from being published under the "bad ideas" link
of the Secret WG web site.

This kind of goofy idea, which Bill would like to see documented,
would never make it to the RFC stage. What a shame - imagine all
that useless energy unwasted.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

3 months to the next trip. I guess it's finally time to settle down and
find a grocery store.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: