[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.