The subject is a good summary of the question... I can't see important problems which could make a meeting of the DNS TF necessary but perhaps I've forgotten something ? Thanks Francis.Dupont@inria.fr PS: new discussions about the domain object can be made at the DB TF meeting ?
Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@inria.fr> writes * The subject is a good summary of the question... * I can't see important problems which could make * a meeting of the DNS TF necessary but perhaps * I've forgotten something ? * * Thanks * * Francis.Dupont@inria.fr * * PS: new discussions about the domain object can be * made at the DB TF meeting ? Question is whether we want to overhaul the domain object, or just approve the small changes discussed last week. If we just want the small changes, I am sure we can do it in the db-wg (Wilfried?). If we want other bigger changes, we'd probably need a dns-wg meeting. -Marten
Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@inria.fr> writes * I can't see important problems which could make * a meeting of the DNS TF necessary but perhaps * I've forgotten something ? * * Thanks * Francis.Dupont@inria.fr
Question is whether we want to overhaul the domain object, or just approve the small changes discussed last week. If we just want the small changes, I am sure we can do it in the db-wg (Wilfried?). If we want other bigger changes, we'd probably need a dns-wg meeting.
We probably should still do it - if possible - within the db-wg. It's (just :-) another object and I think we should decide what's it use and what's the future of each of its attributes. I think it more relates to documented procedures and common usage of the RIPE DB than to DNS. It also has relevance with two action items in the db-wg (documentation, another new domain-object for in-addr delegations). But maybe I'm lacking the history of the dns-wg and db-wg than please excuse my ignorance.
-Marten
Andreas (Knocke, DE-NIC)
participants (3)
-
Andreas.Knocke＠nic.de -
Francis Dupont -
Marten Terpstra