joe,
i have read the draft. if published, i would prefer it as a proposed
standard as it does specify protocol data objects.
< where you goin' with that gun in your hand? >
i am not at all sanguine about the issues raised in the in sec cons. i
accept that NTRE038D may have asked that these be in the dns, but seems
to me that it is ill advised and some other means to meet their actual
needs might be found. e.g. what's the matter with logs?
nits you are welcome to ignore.
1 - intro - do we have a standard way to refer to the dns specs as tuned
in 42 subsequent rfcs since 1035?
3.2 and 4.2 the presentation format specs might be simpler if the
examples in 5 were moved there
6 - the example use case is as much or more a motivation as an example
randy