Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional

In favour of adoption but like to see text from both AUTH and recursive behaviour.

Not convinced the situation should be this black and white - eg perhaps partial glue would be enough not to require TC=1 or behaviour for resolvers could be a little more advanced to try with partial before going to TCP.

If my request seem stupid, the draft needs clarification for stupid people like me :)

Paul

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 18, 2020, at 14:30, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:50 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> As we stated in the meeting and in our chairs actions, we're going to run
>> regular call for adoptions over next few months.  
>> We are looking for *explicit* support for adoption.
>> 
>> 
>> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional
>> 
>> The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andrews-dnsop-glue-is-not-optional/
>> 
>> Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for adoption
>> by DNSOP, and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.
>> 
>> Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.
>> 
> 
> I support adoption by the WG, believe it is suitable, and am willing to review and contribute text.
> 
> Brian
> 
>  
>> This call for adoption ends: 1 June 2020
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> tim wicinski
>> DNSOP co-chair
>> _______________________________________________
>> DNSOP mailing list
>> DNSOP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> DNSOP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop