--On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 22:18 -0500 Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > John> I think the rest is a bit of a judgment call. While > I'd be John> happy to see a comprehensive document that > would address all John> of those issues, I would also like > to get a good description John> of the RRTYPE published > somewhere soon, ideally a couple of John> years ago. It > seems to me that making a complete analysis of John> > security alternatives, or a complete analysis of the URI > John> situation as it relates to this RRTYPE, much less both > are John> likely to be a _lot_ of effort and that, if we > want to get the John> document published, what should be > done should probably be John> confined to explicitly > noting the issues, e.g., that any John> indirection > through the DNS raises security issues that need John> > careful understanding and for which there is no magic bullet. > > I'm happy with an informational document that does the above > and claims only to describe the existing RR type. > I'm not happy with a standards-track document that fails to > cover the security issues in significantly better detail. I'm inclined to be a little more flexible, but certainly a choice between a narrowly-written Informational document and a comprehensive Standards-track one -- with "comprehensive" including careful discussion of both security considerations and relationships to other alternatives -- would be my first preference. The current I-D is none of the above. Instead, it is a mixture of description of a new RRTYPE with an update to an existing RRTYPE and weak coverage of relationships, alternatives, security, and other tradeoffs. john