[dnsext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> (xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification) to Proposed Standard

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Mon, 23 January 2012 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A39F21F86EB; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:23:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k3Umlxm50e2B; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:23:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A39BD21F863D; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:23:17 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1
Message-ID: <20120123182317.28636.48689.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:23:17 -0800
Cc: dnsext@ietf.org
Subject: [dnsext] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> (xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: dnsext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <dnsext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsext>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext>, <mailto:dnsext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:23:18 -0000

The IESG has received a request from the DNS Extensions WG (dnsext) to
consider the following document:
- 'xNAME RCODE and Status Bits Clarification'
  <draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode-00.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-02-06. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


   The Domain Name System (DNS) has long provided means, such as CNAME
   (Canonical Name), where a query can be redirected to a different
   name. A DNS response header has an RCODE (Response Code) field, used
   for indicating errors, and response status bits. This document
   clarifies, in the case of such redirected queries, how the RCODE and
   status bits correspond to the initial query cycle (where the CNAME or
   the like was detected) and subsequent or final query cycles.







The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsext-xnamercode/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.