Re: [dnsext] WGLC: draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt

I have read the draft and support it being published.

That said, should this doc update RFC 1035 and/or RFC 2672(bis)?  There is a
fine line between "clarifying" and "updating".  This isn't a show-stopper
IMHO, but since this clarification is important to implementors, it probably
should be noted.

Scott

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> This message starts a two-week WGLC on the draft
> draft-eastlake-dnsext-xnamercode-03.txt.  While we did not formally
> take the step of adopting that I-D as a WG document, it is
> sufficiently related to the topic of RFC2672bis that your chairs
> believe it should be processed at the same time.
>
> Please review the draft.  If you support publication, please state as
> much on the list.  If you are opposed to publication, please state
> that on the list as well.  It is more helpful to have your reasons for
> your position as part of your statement.
>
> According to the usual DNSEXT convention, we require at least five
> reviews in favour of publication in order to proceed.  Five supportive
> reviewers is a necessary but not sufficient condition for publication
> (i.e. evidence of significant opposition counts against a measure of
> rough consensus).
>
> The WGLC will end on 2011-04-27 at 21:00 UTC.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrew (as document shepherd)
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs@shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> dnsext mailing list
> dnsext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext
>