On 05/21/2013 10:04 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
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.
The criteria for Proposed Standard are quite a bit higher than that.
See RFC 2026 section 4.1.1.
TThe 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.
Assignment of the RR types (though IMO unfortunate) is a separate
issue. Granting Proposed Standard status would essentially be an
endorsement of this practice by IETF.
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.
Perhaps Informational or Experimental would be a better label for this
document, then.
Keith