Hi Joe, Thank you for the supportive feedback, it’s encouraging to hear that the work is seen as pragmatic and valuable for interoperability.
You raise a fair point about working group fit. The protocol is indeed HTTP-based rather than modifying DNS wire format, so I understand DNSOP may not be the natural home. Med (as DNSOP Area Director) has clarified that DNSOP serves as DNS dispatch for the IETF, and suggested I continue the discussion here. I’d welcome any guidance on the right path forward. Would this be better suited for an existing WG, or would forming a new tightly-scoped group be the recommended approach? If the latter, what would be the typical first steps? I’m also happy to reach out to other providers and client implementers to gauge interest in collaborating on this. Best regards, Andrea Ferro > On 19 Jan 2026, at 10:12, Joe Abley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Andrea, > > I think it's clear that the Dyn style of update protocols are widely-deployed > and that it would be better to have a single, good protocol than to have to > implement ten different protocols on every home gateway that ships and ask > people to choose between them during setup. > > My personal opinion is that this is a nice piece of work to bring to the > IETF. It fits a pragmatic need and there's a clear benefit to > interoperability. > > My other personal opinion is that this style of update protocol has very > little to do with the DNS protocol, and that dnsop is probably not the right > place to find people to work on it. > > There are several different organisations that provide services for these > kinds of protocols, and no shortage of client implementations. Perhaps if you > all banded together you could find the energy to form a nice, tightly-scoped > working group to produce a specification and running code. > > > Joe
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
