Mon, 30, 2006 at 11:09:47AM -0500, ?lafur Gu?mundsson /DNSEXT co-chair wrote:
as a working group document:
Thanks. There have been around 10 suggestions received already since I first
mentioned this draft on the list, and a number of these suggestions have
been or will be incorporated in the draft. A new version will be available
soon. Nothing drastic has changed however.
The question is: Does the working group prefer that the document stay
focused on the issue it is currently addressing or should the scope of the
document be expanded?
My personal preference is for this draft to remain 'lean and mean', and keep
a highly focussed message: rules for DNS implementors that, if followed,
protect against spoofing ('id guessing'), with additional hints for zone
owners how they can configure their zones for the same purpose. The latter
part might be more of a DNSP thing, but it would be silly to have two
separate drafts.
If the document stays focused then, there is opportunity for others
to volunteer to edit working group documents addressing the other two
issues.
Yes please. I fully realise a lot of brain cycles are already busy on a
number of other drafts currently tabled, but I hope we can keep things
focussed and get a useful document without too much back and forth.
Thanks for your attention!