This is obviously in the wrong thread. Sorry for that, the previous message that draft-berra-dnsop-announce-scanner was not adopted by the WG is the correct one.
Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý (He/Him) [email protected] > On 13. 2. 2026, at 19:45, Ondřej Surý <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > the chairs believe that dnsop-delegation-mgmt-via-ddns gathered enough support > from the WG and we are now asking the document authors to resubmit the > document > as the WG document as it has been adopted. > > Ondrej > -- > Ondřej Surý (He/Him) > [email protected] > >> On 4. 12. 2025, at 13:48, Peter Thomassen via Datatracker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> Subject: Call for adoption: draft-berra-dnsop-announce-scanner-02 (Ends >> 2025-12-18) >> >> This message starts a 2-week Call for Adoption for this document. >> >> Abstract: >> In DNS operations, automated scanners are commonly employed by the >> operator of a parent zone to detect the presence of specific records, >> such as CDS or CSYNC, in child zones, indicating a desire for >> delegation updates. However, the presence and periodicity of these >> scanners are typically implicit and undocumented, leading to >> inefficiencies and uncertainties. >> >> This document proposes an extension to the semantics of the DSYNC >> resource record, as defined in [RFC9859], allowing parent zones to >> explicitly signal the presence and scanning interval of such >> automated scanners. This enhancement aims to improve transparency >> and coordination between child and parent zones. >> >> TO BE REMOVED: This document is being collaborated on in Github at: >> https://github.com/johanix/draft-berra-dnsop-announce-scanner >> (https://github.com/johanix/draft-berra-dnsop-announce-scanner). The >> most recent working version of the document, open issues, etc, should >> all be available there. The authors (gratefully) accept pull >> requests. >> >> File can be retrieved from: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-berra-dnsop-announce-scanner/ >> >> Please reply to this message keeping [email protected] in copy by indicating >> whether you support or not the adoption of this draft as a WG document. >> Comments to motivate your preference are highly appreciated. >> >> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual >> Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [2]. >> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions >> of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any. >> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be >> found at [3]. >> >> Thank you. >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/ >> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/ >> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/ >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
