On 2013-05-21, at 09:36, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Publishing EUI-XX addresses in the DNS is a bad idea. With respect, *my* question as the author of this document is simply whether the specification provided is unambiguous and sufficient. It was my understanding that this was the question before the community in this last call. There has been very little review of the actual specification in this thread to date. RRType assignments are made based on expert review, not IETF consensus, document published, or any other criteria. In this case, the RRTypes have been assigned and are known to have three independent implementations. I'm not sure how the Internet benefits from not publishing a specification in a sensible place (and the RFC series is surely the most sensible place). *I* think it's a good idea for this specification to be published as an RFC. The topics of whether the current RRType assignment process is appropriate, or whether storing these IEEE addresses in the DNS is a good or bad idea or whether sub-typing would be useful in any as-yet unknown future use case seem entirely tangential. This is not to say they are not useful topics, but I don't see how they relate to this document. Whether or not this document proceeds has nothing to do with any of that. > I get the impression that we're bending over backwards to try to create new security risks with this document, and people are trying to justify it by citing freedom to innovate. IMO, that's not the kind of "innovation" that IETF should be endorsing. I have no real idea where you get that impression. The goal of this document is to document the use of RRTypes that have already been assigned, to provide a more structured option for encoding data that is already published in the DNS using non-interoperable and clumsy encoding schemes. Nothing more. Joe