Re: [Asrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-08.txt (fwd)

["Chris Lewis" <[e-mail]>]

John Levine wrote:

> If there were a son-of-DNSBL that published more complex information,
> e.g., if we figure out reputation well enough to understand what a
> generally useful reputation record containing more than one bit would
> contain, I'd be less opposed to a new RRTYPE since both producers and
> consumers would need new code anyway to support it.  But inventing a
> new record that is just like an A record only different is silly.

Yeah, I think I said that in that argument ;-)

Furthermore, if we were to do something more featureful than DNSBLs,
it'd probably not be DNS anyway, so a new RRTYPE is moot.

> Re your other point, if it seems likely that the BCP-ish doc can come
> out at the same time as the spec, I would of course adjust the reference
> to it from the current vague language to be more specific.

What's preventing the BCP-ish document coming out at the same time as
the spec?

I've been handed a few more typographical nitpicks, still nothing
substantive.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg