IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Re: Comments on "Service Binding Mapping for Service Levels"

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org> Fri, 25 July 2025 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
X-Original-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: dnsop@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BF64B22773 for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 05:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7-FL1X_NesJW for <dnsop@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 05:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa4.dc.icann.org (ppa4.dc.icann.org [192.0.46.77]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A9D44B22768 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 05:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (out.mail.icann.org [64.78.33.6]) by ppa4.dc.icann.org (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTPS id 56PCtw1L015267 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 05:55:58 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.128) by MBX112-W2-CO-2.pexch112.icann.org (10.226.41.130) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1748.26; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 05:55:52 -0700
Received: from MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([169.254.44.235]) by MBX112-W2-CO-1.pexch112.icann.org ([169.254.44.235]) with mapi id 15.02.1748.026; Fri, 25 Jul 2025 05:55:52 -0700
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@icann.org>
To: DNSOP Working Group <dnsop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ext] [DNSOP] Re: Comments on "Service Binding Mapping for Service Levels"
Thread-Index: AQHblCJGUNnPddqEvkGcG0p4sKa8QbRD6FqAgAAroIA=
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 12:55:52 +0000
Message-ID: <B5176581-9160-4253-82F6-F6FCDD040276@icann.org>
References: <SA1PR15MB4370B576D2D88F883391CB74B3D32@SA1PR15MB4370.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <CAKC-DJggUeEMNMXsSsG4DD1vksrvCeGwknXLGRPzrmBozPqZgg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKC-DJggUeEMNMXsSsG4DD1vksrvCeGwknXLGRPzrmBozPqZgg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.0.47.234]
x-source-routing-agent: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <F826F96431B7904B86BCE3829FD95661@pexch112.icann.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1099,Hydra:6.1.9,FMLib:17.12.80.40 definitions=2025-07-25_03,2025-07-24_01,2025-03-28_01
Message-ID-Hash: 35WWL2TZNXKYCIG5CF4N7V7AH2OLIWBV
X-Message-ID-Hash: 35WWL2TZNXKYCIG5CF4N7V7AH2OLIWBV
X-MailFrom: paul.hoffman@icann.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Re: Comments on "Service Binding Mapping for Service Levels"
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/MMUQublGx0uhqtzKiWa7elIC1Ak>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

This draft seems to be about the DNS only tangentially. The gist of the document and the discussion in the WG today is about target servers pointed to.

As noted in the chat, the authors don't need an RFC, much less an IETF stream RFC, in order to get a registration for the new SvcParam. Because this is really not about the DNS, I propose that the authors get their own mailing list for discussion, and let the WG know when that list is created.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status