From wmaton at ottix.net  Mon Oct 21 22:34:57 2013
From: wmaton at ottix.net (William F. Maton Sotomayor)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:34:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [as112-ops] [DNSOP] Call for Adoption:
 draft-andrews-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303 (fwd)
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1310211830290.21178@iskra.ottix.net>


FYI folks.  Not that there's any action required on your part since none 
of these are delegated to AS112 - which is in part part of the problem. 
Preventing lame delegations for those who do not have new zones in their 
configurations...

wfms

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:09:43 -0400
From: Joe Abley <jabley at hopcount.ca>
To: Tim Wicinski <tim.wicinski at teamaol.com>
Cc: draft-andrews-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303 at tools.ietf.org, DNSOP at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-andrews-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303


On 2013-10-21, at 11:29, Tim Wicinski <tim.wicinski at teamaol.com> wrote:

> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-andrews-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303.
>
> The draft is available here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andrews-dnsop-rfc6598-rfc6303/
>
> 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.

The registration policy for the IPv4 Locally Served Zones registry is "IETF review". So while I have no objection to the working group adopting this document, there's no reason in principle why it needs wg review.

I am willing to review in the context of dnsop if it is adopted.

The document is clear and concise and is ready for last call, I would say. So while I'm also willing to contribute text, I can't think of any that would be needed.


Joe

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

